High CourtsSingle Bench

Birendra Kumar Noriya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 MP CK 0059

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 409
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 25763 Of 2020
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

20 paragraphs · 445 words

Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with

Crime No.315/2018 registered at Police Station Udaypura, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

The first bail application of the applicant i.e. M.Cr.C. No.7416/2020 has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 02.06.2020.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is also

submitted that during custody period the applicant was tested Corona Positive. List of the Corona Positive patients is attached with the application

which shows that the applicant was tested Corona Positive on 20.07.2020. It is further submitted that the applicant is aged 46 years and is suffering

from various other ailments and requires treatment. The applicant is also ready to deposit Rs.7,50,000/- under protest in the form of FDR which will be

disbursed to the person concern on the basis of pronouncement of final judgment. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in custody since

21.01.2020. He is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application. There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the witnesses.

He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed upon him. In view of the aforesaid,

prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific

allegation against the present applicant. It is also submitted that no certificate of the jail authorities has been filed by the applicant, which shows that he

was tested Corona positive till now and his treatment is going on. In view of the aforesaid, applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

This is a second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.7416/2020 has been dismissed on merits.

A part from the fact that applicant has been tested Corona positive, there is no change in the circumstances of the case so as to take a different view

in this second application for grant of bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/State, I am of

the considered view that at this stage it is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant.

Consequently, this second application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, stands dismissed.