Shailu @ Shailendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

They are heard. Perused the case diary.

This first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicants, who are implicated in connection with Crime No.301/2019 registered at Police Station Sendhwa City, District Barwani (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The applicants are in custody since 13.10.2019.

As per prosecution story, on 08.10.2019 complainant Vipul Sharma s/o Sanjay lodged FIR at Police Station, Sendhwa City, District Barwani (MP) to the effect that on the date of the incident he was along with Harshit Sharma and Kanha @ Akash Sharma in a new Scorpio Car and visiting relatives on the occasion of Dussehra. It is alleged that when they reached to Bajrang Chowk at around 09.30 PM, Shailu Koli, Pawan s/o Ganesh Koli, Kanha @ Tushar Koli came there; abused filthy language and assaulted them on account of the fact that they have lodged report against their brother. It is also alleged that applicant Shailu @ Shailendra put a gun in the mouth of one Rishi Sharma and threatened complainants with dire consequences. Hence, case has been registered against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present crime. Except offence under Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959, all other offences registered against the applicants are bailable in nature. No firearm has been recovered from the possession of applicant No.2 Pawan. One country made pistol alleged to have been recovered from the possession of applicant No.1 Shailu @ Shailendra s/o Rajendra, for which a separate offence Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 has been registered at Police Station Sendhwa City, District Barwani. However, no such recovery has been made in the present case. Therefore, the offence registered against applicant No.1 Shailu @ Shailendra is bailable in nature. The applicants are in custody since 13.10.2019. The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed. There is no possibility of absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if they are enlarged on bail. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to applicants.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the bail application by contending that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicants on bail; hence he prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicants is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

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