Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/52156/2018 of ARJUN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018
MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Arjun Versus State of M.P.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDOREArjun Versus State of M.P.(M.Cr.C. No.52156 of 2018)
M.Cr.C. No.52156 of 2018
-Indore, Dated: 31/12/2018
Shri Sachin Parmar, learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Public Prosecutor forthe respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
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.
O R D E R
1. This is the first bail application under Section 439 ofthe Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.204/2018 underSections 382, 395 and 397 of IPC registered at PoliceStation—Manawar, District—Dhar.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.3.2018,when the shopkeepers were going to close their shops atabout 10.00 in the night, some unknown miscreantsassaulted on them. They beat the shopkeeper with woodenand stones. There was commotion, on the claimer of theshopkeepers, some villagers reached there, seeing them,the miscreants fled away from the spot. When complainantchecked his chest, found that Rs.15,000/- were missing.Similarly, some other articles were missing from the shopof Govind, Papu, Kailash, Mukesh, Rajendra and RajendraChouhan. They all approached the police and lodged FIR.During investigation, police arrested the present applicant.A mobile of Intex company was recovered from hispossession. He was put for identification but complainant
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDOREArjun Versus State of M.P.(M.Cr.C. No.52156 of 2018)
could not identify him.
3. Considering the aforesaid, and other facts andcircumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release theaccused on bail. Therefore, without commenting on meritsof the case, the application is allowed.
4. It is directed that the petitioner Arjun S/o Kamru Bhil be released from custody on his furnishing a personalbond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand)with one solvent surety of the like amount to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before theTrial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial andshall attend the trial Court during the trial;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectlyallure or make any inducement, threat or promiseto the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade themfrom disclosing such facts of the Court;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence orinvolve in any criminal activities;
(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminalactivity is found, the bail granted in this case mayalso be cancelled.
(Virender Singh) Judge