CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Deepak Banskar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 MP CK 0114

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 399, 400, 402 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27 · Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 — Section 11, 13
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 36236 Of 2023
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

11 paragraphs · 374 words

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

1.

Case diary is available.

2.

This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested on 12.7.2023 in connection with Crime No.132/2023 registered at Police Station Pandokhar, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC, under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

3.

Prosecution story, in brief is that on 6.7.2023 at about 20:40 hours after receiving a secret information, complainant SHO Ajay Ambe and other apolice officials reached to the informed place behind Government School, Village Sikari, Police Station Pandokhar, they found that the applicant and other co-accused persons making preparation for committing dacoity. Applicant was found having one 315 bore gun and one live cartridge.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant. He has been falsely implicated in the matter. The applicant is in custody since 12.7.2023. Trial will take time to conclude and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.

6.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

7.

Having considered the rival submission, material pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, nature of allegations alleged against the applicant so also other facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence the application is allowed.

8.

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.

9.

This application is allowed and stands disposed of.

10.

Certified copy, as per Rules.