High CourtsSingle Bench

Badri vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 3 August 2012 · Citation: (2012) 08 MP CK 0235

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Gangele, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 437(3), 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 147, 148, 149, 294, 302 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(x)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
MCRC No. 5899 of 2012
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

7 paragraphs · 471 words

S.K. Gangele, Judge

1.

Heard. This is first application filed by the applicant u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

2.

An offence vide Crime No. 12 of 2012 has been registered against the applicant at police station Ajak, District Sheopur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) & 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3.

The allegation against the applicant is that he is a member of the family and caused injuries to the complainant parties. There was a dispute in regard of possession of the land and due to the aforesaid dispute, fourteen persons were injured out of which five were ladies. The trial Court in its order observed that a cross case vide Crime No. 363/2012 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 506B, 147 and 149 of IPC has also been registered against the complainant party, Ramesh Baikha and Balla Ram. As per the FIR, Satyanarayan inflected injury by ''axe'' to Duraga Sankar. As per the MLC report of the Duraga Sankar, there were four injuries over the person of the body of Duraga Shankar. From the nature of the injuries, it appears that deceased Durga Shankar was died due to head injury caused by Satyanarayan. There was a free-fight between both the parties and a cross-case has also been registered against the complainant party. In the present case, about the sixteen persons of one family have been made accused. As informed by the learned Panel Lawyer, there is no previous criminal history of the applicant.

4.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is in custody 28-06-2012. Other co-accused persons, namely Badri S/o Brajlal and Kadu @ Kadulal have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01/8/2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5835/2012 and M.Cr.C. No. 5809/2012 respectively and there is a parity between the present applicant and other co-accused, Badri and Kadulal.

5.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

6.

Looking to the nature of allegation and the fact that the deceased was died due to injury caused by Satyanarayan and also considering the fact that there is a party between the applicant and other co-accused, Badri and Kadulal who have already been enlarged on bail, but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the application is hereby allowed and it is directed that applicant Badri S/o. Moti be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The applicant shall also comply with the conditions as enumerated u/s 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules.