Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4518/2024 of VIJAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4518 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY S/O MR. HAZARILAL KUCHBANDIYA, AGEDABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O WARDNO 10 TAHSIL SEONIMALWA DISTRICTNARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ABHAY GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION SEONIMALWA DISTRICT NARMADAUPRAM(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SMT. NUPUR DHAMIJA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to F.I.RNo.434/19 dated 16.11.2019 of P.S.Seoni Malva, District Hoshangabad (M.P.)for commission of offence under Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Act, 1908. Heis in detention since 18.10.2023.
2. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer for grant of bail after two months vide order dated 24.11.2023passed in M.Cr.C. No.51386 of 2023.
3 . As per the prosecution story, on 15.11.2019 complainant heard the sound of explosion and saw smoke coming out from the gym run by thepresent applicant. In investigation country made bomb was found exploded.F.I.R was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant isinnocent. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated. Heis in jail for last three months. After investigation charge sheet has already beenfiled. There is no direct evidence against him. Trial of the case will takeconsiderable time. Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may bereleased on bail pending the trial.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposedgrant of bail to the applicant and has submitted that applicant has criminalbackground of 24 cases. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for applicant has submitted thatapplicant has been acquitted in almost all cases and these cases are of the year2013 and prior to that.
7. In this case, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Having taken into consideration the detention period of the applicant and otherfacts and circumstances of the case including the fact that trial of the case willtake considerable time but without expressing any opinion on the merit of thecase, I am of the view that it is a case in which further pretrial detention of theapplicant is not warranted. Consequently, second bail application under Section439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf ofapplicant stands allowed.
8. It is directed that applicant- Vijay be released on bail on hisfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfactionof the trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trialwith a condition that he shall remain present before the concerned Court on allthe dates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumeratedunder Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
9. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case ofbail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall becomeineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGEMKL