High CourtsSingle Bench

Vivek Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 August 2019 · Citation: (2019) 08 MP CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 31074 Of 2019
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

13 paragraphs · 554 words

This is second application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 31/6/2019 in connection with Crime No.227/2019 registered at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 307, 34 of the IPC.

I t is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this is the second application of the applicant. The first application was dismissed on 05/7/2019. Thereafter, enough time have been granted for further investigation. The applicant has been falsely implicated. He is in custody since more than one and half months. The change in circumstance in this case is that co-accused Bhaiyyu Khan has already been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board against whom the allegation of inflicting gun-shot injury is alleged. The present applicant has been made accused in this case on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that no any test identification parade has been conducted till date despite the statement of the complainant that he will identify the accused in the test identification parade. It is also submitted that as per the medical report, no injury has been found on the body of the injured. Further, there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

Per contra, the application is opposed by the State counsel on the ground that there is specific allegation against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused is a juvenile, therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board has granted him bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of the bail application. Perused the case diary.

Considering the pretrial detention as well as the fact that the co- accused has been granted bail, the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the 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 investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.

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

4.

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

5.

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance as well as copy of the order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.

Certified copy as per rules.