Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4337/2024 of PATLIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4337 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PATLIYA S/O DEMA TADVI BHIL, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR NAVAD FALYA SEJLA,THANA BISTHAN DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MS. ARCHANA MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BISTHANDISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - G.A.)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for orders 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 first application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 257/2023, registered at P.S. Bisthan, districtKhargone for the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
2. It is alleged that applicant along with other co-accused personscommitted murder of one Rukhadiya.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that prosecution case is based on last seen evidence and circumstantial evidence. Counsel submits that last seenwitnesses namely Mayaram and Chainsingh have not mentioned his name.
Apart from that, there is no seizure except his shirt and his memorandum.
4 . Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail bysubmitting that name of the applicant has been mentioned by co-accusedRamesh in his memorandum.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the factthat name of the applicant has not been mentioned by the last seen witnessesnamely Mayaram and Chainsingh and there is seizure of his shirt only, apartfrom that, prima facie there is no evidence. However, without expressing anyview on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
6. It is directed that Applicant- Patliya shall be released from custodyupon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.
7. A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of theAdvocate General, on their email address, for intimation to the Police Stationconcerned. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the courtbelow.C.c. as per rules.
MK
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE