High CourtsSingle Bench

Priyanshu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 4 December 2023 · Citation: (2023) 12 MP CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439, 437(3) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 53515 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

7 paragraphs · 506 words

Anil Verma, J

1.

This is the first application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to FIR No 363/2023 registered at P.S-Gandhi Nagar, Indore for the offence under sections 307/34 of IPC.

2/ As per prosecution story, on 25/09/2023 at about 9 - 9-15 am, when complainant Pawan Purohit was returned to home from Medanta Hospital, at that time, present applicant and other co-accused persons intercepted him. Present applicant caught hold of his hand and other accused persons Sagan and Mani stabbed upon him by means of knife, therefore, he sustained injuries over his chest, shoulder, right thigh and again on his right thigh. The complainant lodged FIR at police station - Gandhi Nagar, Indore. Accordingly, the aforementioned offence was registered.

3/ Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. Applicant is in custody since 29/09/2003 Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Limited allegation has been leveled against him regarding caught hold of the victim person at the time of the incident. He did not cause any injury to the victim. He was not having any arm at the time of the incident. He is not the main accused. Victim was discharged from the hospital on the same day. He is permanent resident of District- Indore. He is not having any criminal past There is no apprehension of his fleeing away from the court of justice. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on bail.

4/ Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent – State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection, but fairly admits that no criminal antecedent has been found against the applicant.

5/ Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case dairy. 6/ Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that present applicant attributed limited act in the incident; he was not having any deadly weapon; he is not the main accused who caused fatal injury to the victim; he is not having any criminal past; the applicant is in custody since 29/09/2023 investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed and final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time, in view of the evidence available on record, I deem it proper to release the accused / applicant on bail. 7/ Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing 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.

8/ He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C., Certified copy, as per Rules.