High CourtsSingle Bench

Balram @ Ballu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 12 January 2022 · Citation: (2022) 01 MP CK 0068

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379 · Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 136 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1495 Of 2022
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

21 paragraphs · 368 words

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J

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

The applicant was arrested on 23.10.2021 in connection with Crime No.39/2021 by Police Station Mugalsaray, District Vidisha for the offence

punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 136 of Electricity Act.

A s per prosecution story, on 17.04.2021 at about 09:30 PM complainant Girraj Dangi lodged a report at Police Station Mugalsaray, District Vidisha

alleging therein that on 16.04.2021 at 9 am when he along with Roshan and Anil reached on his field to get down the DP, he saw that oil from DP was

drained out and some oil was lying on the ground. Some unknown persons stole 40-50 liters oil. On his report, a crime under Section 379 of IPC and

Section 136 of Electricity Act bearing No.39/2021 was registered against unknown person. During investigation, after six months, three containers

having 50-50 liters oil was seized from the possession of the applicant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in jail since 23.10.2021.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by

this Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and perused the case diary.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the application

should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that if the applicant furnishes bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he should be released on bail. He will present during trial before

the trial Court on each and every date.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.