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
9 paragraphs · 537 wordsMrs. S.R. Waghmare, Judge
This is an application filed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. which indicates that the condition with regard to filing of bail bond has been inadvertently left out in the order dated 28/8/2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.6373/2012 in favour of the present applicant Kishan. Counsel prayed that the mistake be corrected and fresh order be passed. The error is apparent on the face of the order and not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State.
In this view of the matter, the application is allowed. The order shall now read as follows:
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that in fact initially the crime was registered for offence under Sections 323, 324, 506/34 of the IPC against the applicant, but after receipt of the medical report the offence has been enhanced to one u/s 326 of the IPC at the time of filing of challan since there was fracture on the nose of the injured complainant. Relying on Sayera Bi vs. State of M.P.: 2006 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 262 Counsel contended that the subsequent offence is enhanced into a major offence when the accused had been granted bail earlier then he is entitled to grant of bail subsequently also and the applicant in the present case has already been arrested. Hence, Counsel has prayed for grant of bail since the applicant is in jail from 20/6/2012.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the applicants. He has admitted that the offence has been enhanced one u/s 326 of IPC by the police on receipt of the medical report of the injured complainant and initially the applicant has not been granted bail by the trial Court. However, Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the material available on record, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed. However, stringent condition needs to be allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m. during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/s 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules.
