Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/2969/2024 of RAJESH YADAV @ SADHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGATON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2969 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH YADAV @ SADHU S/O DADUA YADAV, AGEDABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURKURMANTALA POLICE STATION BARAUDHA,DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI HEMANT SEN - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION BARAUDHA, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SATYAPAL CHADHAR - GOVT. 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 second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIRNo.27/2023, registered at Police Station-Baraudha, District Satna (M.P.) for theoffence under Sections 386, 392, 394, 327, 427 of I.P.C., Section 25/27 ofArms Act and under Section 11,13 of M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vypharan PrabhavitKshetra Adhiniyam, 1981.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that earlier bailapplication filed by applicant was dismissed with liberty to file repeat application after examination of complainant. It is submitted that complainant inthe case is one Anuj Pal. Notices were issued to him but he did not appearbefore the Court on 15.09.2023, 22.10.202 and on 27.10.2023.On 21.12.2023witness appeared before Court but he could not be examined in Court due toshortage of time, thereafter, again notices were issued but same was not servedupon witness and case was adjourned. It is further submitted that case wasagain listed on 29.01.2024. On said date also, notices could not be served onwitnesses and fresh notices were issued. It is submitted that there is delay in trialon part of prosecution. In these circumstances, applicant may be released onbail.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed theapplication for grant of bail.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Complainant witnesses did not appear before Court and when appeared, he was not examined and was bound over for his examination onnext date. On next date, fresh notices were issued and said notices were notserved.
6. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, bailapplication filed by applicant is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall bereleased on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. FiftyThousand Only)with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfactionof the trial Court concerned for his regular appearance before Court on all suchdates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial.
7. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions of Section437 (3) of Cr. P. C. as under:- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the sp/- conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter; (b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to theoffence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission ofwhich he is suspected and;
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with thefacts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts tothe Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
8. C.C. as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)JUDGE