Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/56297/2023 of PUSHPENDRA @ GOLU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGHON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56297 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PUSHPENDRA @ GOLU S/O BALURAM BHURIYA, AGEDABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O DIAMONDPALACE DAIRY LANE SIRPUR KANKADCHANANNAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI YASH PAL RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION AERODRUMDIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL.
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 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regularbail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to FIRNo.358/2023 dated (not mentioned), registered at Police Station-Aerodrum,District-Indore M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant is in custody since 28.05.2023.
2. As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he has committed theft.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted thatthere is no recovery in the matter from the applciant. The applicant is in custodysince 28.05.2023. Final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient longtime, therefore, it is prayed that the application be allowed and the applicants bereleased on bail.
4. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed theprayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that the applicant is having 17criminal records of similar nature. However, in reply, counsel for the applicantsubmits that no one can be kept in custody for indefinite period on the basis of record.
Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of thecase, custody period of the applicant, I am inclined to release the applicant onbail. Consequently, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, bailapplication under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed onbehalf of applicant, stands allowed.
6. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing apersonal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) withone solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for hisregular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that heshall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by itduring trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case ofbail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall becomeineffective.
However, after being enlarged on bail, the applicant shall mark his presence before the concerned police station on every first and fourthSunday of every Month, till the end of trial.
Certified copy as per rules.
amit
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)JUDGE