Aman vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.530/2025 registered at Police Station Bargi, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 238(b) of B.N.S. Applicant is in detention since 22.11.2025. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.01.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after completing the period of three months from the date of order.

The counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is behind bar since 22.11.2025. Applicant is 18 years old young boy and having one criminal antecedent of the same day wherein he has been falsely implicated in that offence and has been enlarged on bail in that offence. He has submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant is going on Scooty Access and thereafter, chasing the other person for committing robbery. He has submitted that there is no other material against the present applicant and it transpires from the papers of charge sheet that there is no other believable material with the prosecution which implicates the present applicant in the offence in question and, therefore, he prays to allow the application as applicant is behind bar since 22.11.2025. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take its own time, therefore, applicant be released on bail.

3 . Per contra, counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that applicant has one criminal antecedent of dacoity and he is a habitual offender and considering the conduct of the applicant, no relief can be granted. He further submitted that the applicant has been identified in Test Identification Parade also and prays for rejection of bail application.

Heard the submissions made at the bar and perused the case diary.

Considering the statement made at the Bar and the material available on record and papers of case diary and considering the role attributed to the present applicant and also considering that except TIP, no other material is available with the prosecution and there is no recovery from the present applicant. The charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is 18 years old young boy, trial will take a considerable time as well as the principle 'bail is the rule, jail is an exception' and also the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I deem it a fit case to release the applicant on bail, however, considering the age of the applicant i.e. 18 years, some stringent conditions are required to be imposed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial. In addition to this, (1) he shall also mark his presence on every Second and Fourth Wednesday of every month before the concerned Police Station till the trial gets over; (2) he shall not influence the proceedings of trial; (3) he shall make himself available as and when required in trial; (4) he shall not involve himself in any criminal activity otherwise prosecution shall be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail and this order shall stand automatically cancelled and police and trial Court shall be at liberty to commit him in jail and; (5) he shall abide the conditions enumerated under section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.]

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.

The Court is inclined to impose costs on the counsel for the applicant for making a misleading statement. However, the Court refrained from doing so, as the counsel tendered an unconditional apology and undertook not to engage in such conduct in the future.

Certified copy as per rules.