High CourtsSingle Bench

Arun Raghuvanshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 16 January 2024 · Citation: (2024) 01 MP CK 0066

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhyankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 — Section 34(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420, 467, 468, 471 · Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 — Section · Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 39, 192(1)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 489 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 341 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1.

They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

2.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he/she is implicated in connection with Crime No.75/2019 registered at Police Station Sagaur, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act; Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 39 and 192(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Applicant is in jail since 17/12/2023.

3.

His first bail application M.Cr.C. No.6677 of 2022 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2022.

4.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that although the applicant was released on bail, however, he could not mark his appearance before the trial Court on 28.08.2023 and thereafter arrest warrants were issued against him and he was arrested and is presently lodged in jail since 17.12.2023. Counsel has submitted that the applicant is a poor person and had gone to earn his livelihood, which led to his absence in the trial Court, which deserves to be condoned. It is also submitted that prior to that the applicant has continuously appeared before the trial Court and one last opportunity may be granted to the applicant.

5.

Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

6.

Having considered rival submissions, perusal of the case-diary, this Court finds force in the submissions as advanced by the counsel for the applicant to allow the application.

7.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he/she shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Certified copy as per rules.