Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/22403/2016 of SATYAM JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 29-12-2016 Shri Manish
MCRC-22403-2016
(SATYAM JAINVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-12-2016
Shri Manish Datta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by ShriJagtendra Prasad and Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counselfor the applicant.
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned PL for respondent -State.
With the consent of the parties, this case is heard finally.The case diary is perused.
The applicant has filed this first application under Section439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has beenarrested by the Police Station Gorakhpur, district Jabalpurin connection with Crime No. 779 of 2016 registered inrelation to the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332,294, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.
Learned Senior counsel submits that the incident took placeon 30.11.2016 at 17.30 hours. The FIR is lodged at 19.26hours at Police Station Gorakhpur, which is at the distanceof about 100 metres from the place of the incident.
Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits the courtbelow did not enlarge the applicant on bail for a singularreason that on 9.12.2016 the investigation was going on andchallan has not been filed. Shri Datt submits that on19.12.2016 the challan has already been filed by the PoliceAuthorities.
It is submitted that except offence under Sections 332 and353 of IPC other offences are bailable. By placing relianceon Section 437 of Cr.P.C, it is submitted that necessaryingredients for refusing the bail are not available in the present case. Considering the aforesaid, it is prayed that nojustification in keeping the applicant in jail is made out.
The prayer for grant of bail is opposed by learned PenalLawyer. However, on specific quarry made by the Bench,learned Penal Lawyer fairly submits that challan hasalready been filed on 19.12.2016.
Page 1 of 2
It is seen that the court below on 09.12.2016 has rejectedthe application for enlarging the applicant on bail on theground that the investigation is still going on. Admittedly,the investigation is over and challan has already been filed.In the aforesaid factual backdrop no useful purposed wouldbe served in keeping the applicant in custody. The trial willconsume sufficient amount of time and, therefore, I deem itproper to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum ofRs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) with two solvent suretiesof the like amount by the applicant to the satisfaction of theconcerned trial court.
This order will remain in operation subject to compliance ofthe following conditions by the applicants :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms andconditions of the bond executed by him/them;conditions of the bond executed by him/them;2.The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial,as the case may be;as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself/ themselves inextending inducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the so as to dissuadehim/her from disclosing such facts to the courts or tothe Police Officer, as the case may be;extending inducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the so as to dissuadehim/her from disclosing such facts to the courts or tothe Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to theoffence of which he is/ they are accused;offence of which he is/ they are accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournmentsduring the trial; andduring the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previouspermission of the trial court/ investigating officer, asthe case may be.permission of the trial court/ investigating officer, asthe case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for compliance.
The M.Cr.C. is disposed off.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL)V. JUDGE
bks
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…