Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3540/2024 of DERARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGATON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3540 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DERARAM S/O ADURAM LEGA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,OCCUPATION: LABOUR CASTE JAAT VILLAGE ARWAPOLICE STATION SARWAN DISTRICT JALORE(RAJASTHAN)
(BY SHRI ANIL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION CITY KOTWALI DISTRICT KHANDWA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AKSHAY NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....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 the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, who is in jail since13.12.2023 relating to FIR No.977/2023 registered at Police Station CityKotwali District Khandwa (M.P.) for the offences under sections 25(1-B)(A)and 25(7-i) of the Arms Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant isa Lega Jat by caste and pasture community. He was herding the goats and hasentered in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He has falsely been implicated in the case and police was demanding money from him. Seizure of weapon wasfalsely shown with him. It is further submitted that offence is punishable uptoseven years of imprisonment.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed theapplication for grant of bail and submitted that applicant is having three criminalantecedents and offence committed by him is serious in nature. Applicant is notnative in the State of Madhaya Pradesh and if he is granted bail then there arechances that he may not be available for trial. Hence, it is prayed that he maynot be granted bail.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Considering serious criminal antecedents of applicant and the fact thathe was also involved in offence of dacoity and also he is not local residence ofState of Madhya Pradesh. There is possibility that applicant may not beavailable for trial.
6. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of theview that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, bail application isdismissed.
7. However, applicant is at liberty to file repeat bail application after filingof charge sheet in the case and showing his immovable property in the State ofRajasthan so that his presence can be assured in the State of Madhay Pradesh.
pn
(VISHAL DHAGAT)JUDGE