High CourtsSingle Bench

Sekhar vs State Of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 11 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 MP CK 0241

HON’BLE JUDGES
Virender Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26432 Of 2020
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

8 paragraphs · 445 words
1.

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for modification of order dated 18.12.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.51422 of 2019, whereby this Court has granted bail to the petitioner imposing a condition to deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/-(rupees fifteen lakhs). The petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to remove this condition.

2.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family. At the time of arrest, he was working as a salesman in OSIA Distributors Private Limited at UB-4, Silver Mall RNT Marg, Indore and was earning Rs.14,500/- per month. His family of a wife, a 12 year old daughter, a 7 year old son and a differently able brother Sanjay Goud, who is suffering from 60% permanent disability in speech and hearing, is completely dependent on him. Therefore, it is not possible for him to pay Rs.15,00,000/- and due to this, he could not come out of the jail even after 8 months of getting bail. It is further submitted that he had taken a house loan and was paying EMI, but due to his detention, he was unable to pay the same and now his house is also on the verge of forfeiture. Due to Covid-19 pandemic induced lock down, there is no hope of resumption of regular functioning of the Courts in the near future. Even thereafter, conclusion of the trial will take considerable time. He is ready to abide all other conditions imposed by the Court and to co-operate with the trial, therefore, the condition of depositing amount of Rs.15 lakhs may be deleted.

3.

The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath Judeja V. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 and Sheikh Ayub Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 457.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer, but has admitted that due to this condition the accused could not come out of the jail even after getting bail.

5.

Considering the hardship expressed by the petitioner, nature of allegation against him, the evidence available on record, along with the period of custody even after getting bail, which is now 8 months and total period of detention, which is now 9 months, I deem it appropriate to accede the prayer of the petitioner.

6.

Therefore, the petition is allowed. Condition of depositing of Rs.15 lakhs as a pre-condition of accepting the bail is deleted.

7.

This order shall be read conjointly with the order dated 18. 12.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.51422 of 2019.

8.

With the aforesaid, present petition stands allowed and disposed of.