High CourtsSingle Bench

Satyam vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 November 2021 · Citation: (2021) 11 MP CK 0069

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 201, 394 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Petition No. 54416 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

19 paragraphs · 659 words

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is in custody since 01.07.2021 in connection with Crime No. 66/2021 registered at Police Station- Kishangarh, District- Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 201of IPC & Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

As per prosecution case, on 1.7.2021 applicant-accused and co- accused committed robbery from complainant Pankaj Asati, at the point of Katta. They looted Rs. 2300/- and one mobile.

Le a r ne d counsel for the applicant/accused submits that applicant/accused has falsely been implicated in this case. Applicant- accused did not commit any offence. FIR was lodged against unknown person. During investigation no property was seized from the possession of present applicant-accused. Applicant accused is not previously convicted. Identification parade was conducted but complainant did not identify the applicant-accused. Applicant is in jail since 01.07.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed. Trial will take time to conclude. Applicant/ accused is bread earner of his family, if he will keep in custody for an unlimited period then his family future will b e spoiled. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

P.L. for the respondent/State opposed the bail application.

Considering the contention of both the parties and the fact that applicant-accusedis not named in the FIR, during the investigation applicant-accused is not identified and no property was seized from the possession of the present applicant, applicant is not previously convicted, applicant is bread earner of his family, trial will take time for its final disposal, applicant is in jail since 01.07.2021, charge-sheet has been filed, there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution, so it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant-accused in jail whole the trial, therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, application of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.

It is directed that applicant-Satyam be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned 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 trial;

3.

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officers;

4.

The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the

6.

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the applicant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority:-

1.

The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.

Certified copy as per rules.