High CourtsSingle Bench

Kailash And Others vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 8 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 MP CK 0037

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhyankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294, 307, 323, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.26861 Of 2021
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

27 paragraphs · 534 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

This is the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as they are implicated in connection with Crime No.116/2021

registered at Police Station Rajod, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The applicants are in custody since 18/05/2021.

Allegation against the applicants is that they assaulted the complainant along with other co-accused persons Ramesh and Babu and co-accused

Ramesh happens to be the father of all the present applicants.

Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter which is also apparent from the statement of the

complainant wherein he has clearly stated that initially co-accused Ramesh and Babu assaulted them which caused the head injury and after some

time present applicants came on the spot and also assaulted them on their back and hips. Counsel has further submitted that no specific overt act is

attributed to the present applicants and the head injury caused to the complainant is attributable to the co-accused Babu. It is further submitted that the

applicants are in jail since 18/05/2021 and no further recovery or discovery is to be made at their instance and the final conclusion of the trial is likely

to take sufficient long time on account of fresh spread of COVID-19. Hence, it is submitted that the bail application be allowed and they be released

on bail.

Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the case diary is also not available.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the main allegations are against the co-accused

and it is also apparent that there was no bony injury caused to the complainant and he has also not been hospitalized, hence finding force with the

contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants and the fact that the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time due to fresh

spread of COVID-19, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicants is allowed. The applicants are directed to be

released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular

appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide

by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

It is also observed that if the applicants are found in any of the criminal activities, after their release on bail, then the present bail order shall stand

cancelled without further reference to this Court; and the State / prosecution will be free to arrest the accused in the present case also.

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.