High CourtsSingle Bench

Manoj Pal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 31 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 MP CK 0147

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 392, 394 · Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 — Section 11, 13
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 33277 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 · 439 words

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

1.

With the consent, heard finally.

2.

Perused the case diary.

3.

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 15.06.2023 in connection with Crime No.114/2023 registered at Police Station Badoni, District Datia (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 392, 394 of IPC and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

4.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.6.2023 at about 21:45 hours when complainant Vikas Rajput and is friend Yashvant Dubey had gone to Badoni Tiraha, the applicant along with other co-accused persons came there on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP32-MH-0392 and car Wagon R bearing Registration No.MP09-WM-8489 surrounded the complainant, assaulted him and also snatched his I-phone-12 and an amount of Rs.2000/-from his pocket.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has only been implicated on the basis of statement of witness Arjun singh Bundela whose statements were recorded on 18.7.2023 i.e. after about a month. Admittedly, complainant and his friend neither knew the applicant nor identified during test identification parade. Nothing identifiable material has been seized from his pocket. He is in custody since 15.06.2023. His custodial interrogation or trial is not required in the matter. Trial will take time for its conclusion. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application and submits that looted amount has been seized from the possession of the applicant. Eyewitness Arjun Singh Bundela who was present on the spot has identified him. Offences alleged against the applicant are of serious in nature.

7.

Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, evidence produced on record against the applicant, period of custody and also other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, 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.