High CourtsSingle Bench

Goru S/O Teru Gundiya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 1 November 2019 · Citation: (2019) 11 MP CK 0004

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 392, 395
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 43488 Of 2019
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

8 paragraphs · 416 words

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the applicant, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.203/2019 registered at Police Station Jhabua, District Jhabua (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 392 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The applicant is in custody since 14.05.2019.

As per prosecution story, complainant Shiv Pal Singh s/o Kapur Singh Rajput lodged first information report on 12.03.2019 alleging that two unknown persons came on motorcycle and they snatched his purse. Hence, the present case has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the the applicant is a youth aged about 22 years and he has not committed any offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR nor in the statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No Test Identification Parade was conducted during the investigation. Cash amount of Rs.2,000/- is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is not identifiable, and therefore, chain of circumstances is broken. The applicant is implicated in the present crime only on the basis of suspicion. The applicant is in custody since 14.05.2019. The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence the application filed by him be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy, as per rules.