High CourtsSingle Bench

Omprakash Rajput vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 5 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 MP CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunita Yadav, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294, 323, 324, 326, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 40242 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

18 paragraphs · 553 words

Sunita Yadav, J

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to FIR No.30 of 2023 registered at Police Station - Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 324, 326 and 34 of IPC

The allegation against the present applicant - accused is that he along with other co-accused persons tried to commit murder of injured-Virendra by inflicting injuries. As per prosecution story, present applicant inflicted lathi blow on the back of the injured.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is aged about 75 years. His son Arvind died from cancer on 30.09.2023 in cancer ward which is evident from marg intimation registered at Degar Marg No. 00/667/2023 by Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior. There is no one to perform last rites and ritual of his son. As per prosecution story, he has inflicted a lathi blow on the back of the injured, however, no other injury on the back of injured is found. In these circumstances and looking to his age and the fact that his son is died recently, he may be granted bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is permanent resident of District Datia (M.P.). Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and pray for its dismissal.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2) The applicant will cooperate in the

investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3 ) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in future. In case, if she is found involving in the offence of same nature, this bail order shall stand cancelled.

5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6 ) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Certified copy today.