High CourtsSingle Bench

Mujjafar vs State Of MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 4 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 MP CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 6, 7, 25(1)(A), 27 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.59426 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

10 paragraphs · 492 words

Anil Verma, J

Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in Jail since 10.10.2021 in connection with Crime No.411/2021 registered at P.S - Makdon, District Ujjain (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 25(1)(A), 6, 7 & 27 of Arms Act.

As per the prosecution story, on 5.10.2021 police got a secret information from the informer that one person named Govind is carrying illegal arms. On the basis of the said information, police reached on the spot and arrested co-accused Govind and found one Desi Katta in his possession. As per the memorandum statement made by the co-accused Govind under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, co-accused Kayyum has also been implicated in this offence and on the basis of memorandum statement of Kayyum, present applicant has been made accused in this case and one country-made pistol has been recovered from his possession. Accordingly offence has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 10.10.2021, he has been made accused on the basis of memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take long sufficient time. He further submits that the applicant is the permanent resident of District Shajapur and there is no possibility of his fleeing away from the court of justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, he prays that applicant be released on bail.

Per-contra, learned PL for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection. But she admits that applicant has no criminal antecedent.

Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order passed by the court below.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation and also taking note of the fact that applicant is in custody since 10.10.2021, no further custodial interrogation is required and final conclusion of trial will take long sufficient time, I deem it proper to release the accused/ applicant on bail.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

Before releasing the applicant from the custody, the Jail Authorities are directed to medically examine him in order to rule out the possibility of Covid-19 infections and shall comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.No. 01/2020.

C.C. as per rules.