Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3029/2024 of PRAFULL THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3029 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PRAFULL THAKUR S/O SHRI GOVIND THAKUR, AGEDABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DELIVERY BOYVILLAGE ADN POLICE OUTPOST PALAARI POLICESTATION AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ARNAV TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI C.K. MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
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 application under Section 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has beenarrested relating t o FIR/Crime No.587/2022 registered at Police StationKevalari, District Seoni, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409,420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D of IT Act. Hisearlier bail application (M.Cr.C. No.33166/2023) was dismissed on merits videorder dated 25.08.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 07.07.2023 and the trial will take considerable time to conclude.He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicatedin the case. The applicant is the permanent resident of district and is ready tofurnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed bythe Court. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released onbail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application andprayed for its rejection.
Heard learned respective counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. This bail application has been argued on the ground that on account oflong period of custody and prospective delay in trial, the Apex Court hasgranted bail to the co-accused Lalit Saryam in SLP (CRL) No.12874/2023 on16.01.2024. According to applicant, he was although charge-sheeted separatelyfrom co-accused Lalit Sariyam, but his case is at par with the co-accused LalitSariyam. Although, his earlier bail application was dismissed under M.Cr.CNo.33166/2023, but it is now argued that applicant had lesser amount creditedin his bank account as compared to Lalit Saryam and on the parameters ofprospective delay in trial, his case is identical to the case of Lalit Saryam,therefore parity is prayed for.
6. Having considered these facts, this Court deems it fit to release theapplicant on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, thisrepeat application is allowed.
7. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail upon 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 concerned for his appearance before the said Court on allsuch dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of the trial.
8. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisionsof Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
DevS
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)JUDGE