High CourtsSingle Bench

Golu @ Akash vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 MP CK 0030

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunita Yadav, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 394, 395 · Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 — Section 11, 13
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 49456 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

19 paragraphs · 549 words

Sunita Yadav, J

The applicant has filed this First application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 30.07.2022 by Police Station Purani Chhawani, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 211 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 395 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

As per prosecution story, the allegation against the present applicant is that he alongwith co-accused persons committed robbery and looted a Pulsar Motorcycle, a Mobile phone and Rs.1700/- from the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that looted motorcycle has not been seized from the possession of present applicant. Memorandum and seizure are doubtful with respect to present applicant. The applicant is in custody since 30.07.2022. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, further custodial interrogation is no more required. The applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior (M.P.). Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

For the sake of parity reliance is placed on the order of similarly placed co-accused Keshav Kushwah & Anil Kushwah who have since been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.10.2022 & 02/11/2022 in M.Cr.C. No.49112/2022 & 50688/2022 respectively.

O n the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and prays for dismissal of bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

In view of above, this Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken in co-accused Keshav Kushwah & Anil Kushwah, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4) The applicant shall not commit any offence during pendency of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench;

5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.