Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4394/2024 of HAAN IRANI @ HASAN ALI 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 MANINDER S. BHATTION THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4394 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
HAAN IRANI @ HASAN ALI S/O MOHSIN ALI, AGEDABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O SANJAYNAGAR COLONY NEAR RAILWAY STATION HAMIDIYAROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SHAFIQUALLAH MOHD. - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICES TATION MADAN MAHAL DISTRICT JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
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 first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with FIR/CrimeNo.275/2023 dated 06.09.2023 registered at Police Station Madan Mahal,District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 356, 379, 392,109, 120B, 34 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that another offence videCrime No.556/2023 was also registered against the applicant under Section 392of IPC in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12/01/2024 in M.Cr.C.No.1454/2024. It is contended by the counsel thatthe same case vide another Crime No.275/2023 has been registered in which theapplicant's bail has been rejected by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge. It iscontended by the counsel that as per the allegations levelled by the prosecution,two persons came on a Motorcycle and snatched the gold chain from thecomplainant and thereby report was lodged. On the basis of memorandum ofco-accused, the present applicant has been implicated. It is further contendedby the counsel that two accused persons namely Sameer Irani and Ali Hasanwere on the bike and undisputedly as per the allegations levelled by thecomplainant herself, there was no third person at the time of alleged offence. Itis contended by the counsel the applicant is aged about 20 years and sufferingincarceration since 09/11/2023 and his past antecedents are unblemished. Thereis no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of theprosecution. Thus, counsel submits that the applicant deserves to be enlargedon bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent as well as objector haveopposed the prayer while submitting that taking into considering the seriousallegations against the applicant, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Heard the submissions and perused the case diary.
6. A perusal of the case diary it is evident that the applicant has beenimplicated on the basis of memorandum of co-accused. As per the allegationsin the FIR, the chain was snatched by two accused namely Sameer Irani and AliHasan and thereafter on the basis of memorandum of one of the co-accused,the present applicant has been implicated. The applicant is in custody since09.11.2023.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, period of incarceration of the applicant and the fact that the present applicant has beenenlarged on bail in connection with the other two cases pertaining to the sameincident and trial would take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of theconsidered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Therefore,without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application isallowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant-Hasan Irani @ Hasan Ali shall bereleased on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount tothe satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the saidCourt on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency oftrial.
9. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisionsof Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
Astha
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)JUDGE