Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/47441/2023 of DHANRAJ PARMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 47441 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DHANRAJ PARMAR S/O SHRI VIJAY PARMAR, AGE 45YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O KAMGAR,MAIDAN POLICE THANA MUDWA DISTRICT PUNE(MAHARASHTRA)
(BY SHRI M.M. TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION GRP (BG) DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI V.P.S. TOMAR - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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
Case diary is available.
2. This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.
3 . The applicant has been arrested on 27.09.2023 in connection withCrime No.569/2023 registered at Police Station GRP (BG), District Gwalior foroffence under Sections 379, 201 of IPC.
4 . I t is submitted by counsel for applicant that according to the prosecution case, a theft took place in the running train. One gold chainweighing about 10 grams, one pair of gold tops weighing about 8 grams, 3 goldrings weighing about 6 grams, are alleged to have been recovered from thepossession of applicant. Although, all these articles were duly identified but theapplicant is in jail for last more than three months. The trial is likely to take longtime. In view of the criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he is resident ofPune (Maharastra), applicant is ready and willing to furnish cash surety.
5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for theState. It is submitted that applicant is a habitual criminal and three more criminalcases of similar in nature have been registered in Maharstra, Goa and Karnatakaagainst him.
6. Considering the nature of allegations, the period of detention as well ascriminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that thisapplication can be allowed only on the stringent condition of cash surety.
7. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, theapplication is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bailon furnishing cash surety of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court onthe dates given by the concerned Court.
8. It is made clear that in case of single default in appearance before theTrial Court, this bail order shall automatically come to an end and the cashsurety so furnished by the applicant shall automatically stand forfeited withoutany reference to the Court.
9. It is also made clear that this order has been passed on the statementmade by counsel for the applicant that applicant is ready and willing to furnishcash surety.
10. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the caseof Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021 in CriminalAppeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to thecomplainant.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
Aman
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)V. JUDGE