High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 11 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 MP CK 0051

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhyankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 306
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.22213 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

26 paragraphs · 494 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during the trial.

The applicant is facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station- Hatod, Distrcit-Indore in Crime

No.186/2020. The applicant is in jail since 21.7.2020.

Applicant's earlier bail application M.Cr.C.No.48337/2020 has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2021.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 21.7.202 and the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficiently long time

on account of Covid-19 pandemic. Counsel has further submitted that under identical circumstances, co-accused persons Ramchandra and Sharda Bai

have been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.Nos. 31003/2020 and 38121/2020 vide order dated 15.9.2020 and 10.11.2020 respectively and also

taking note of the fact that the statement of Sonakshi, daughter of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has not been made a part

and parcel of the challan. Counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the last order sheet dated 6.5.2021 of the present case wherein this Court

has also directed to the learned counsel for the respondent/State to produce the statement of Sonakshi and on which the learned Judge of the trial

Court has also relied upon while rejecting the applicant's bail application. Counsel has submitted that since the statements of the witness Sonakshi are

not part and parcel of the challan the same can not been taken into consideration. Hence, it is submitted that looking to the omnibus allegations the

applicant deserves to be released on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, it is submitted that having could not lay his

hands on the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of Sonakshi, the daughter of the deceased. However, looking to the

allegations levelled against the applicant, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of the case diary, taking note of the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail

by this Court in M.Cr.C.Nos. 31003/2020 and 38121/2020 vide order dated 15.9.2020 and 10.11.2020 and final and the final conclusion of the trial is

likely to take sufficiently long time, this Court finds it expedient to allow the bail application. Accordingly, the present application for grant of bail is

hereby allowed.

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed. The applicant shall be abide by the conditions

as enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy, as per rules.