High CourtsSingle Bench

Yasin Lala vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 16 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 MP CK 0116

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294, 307 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8401 Of 2022
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 · 496 words

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

This is first bail application filed by the applicant â€" Yasin Lala S/o Yusuf Lala under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of

bail in connection with Crime No.812/2021 registered at Police-Station â€" Mahakal, District â€" Ujjain (MP) for the offence punishable under Section

307, 294/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and the applicant is in custody since 26.01.2022.

The prosecution story in short is that on 24.11.2021 at about 8:30 pm, co-accused persons namely; Shadab, Chand and Imran abused and assaulted

Imtiyaz (complainant), co-accused Shadab gave gun shot injury from his country made pistol to complainant Imtiyaz on his stomach due to which he

sustained grievous injuries. It is alleged that country made pistol was provided to co-accused Shadab by present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence. He further submits that

except the memorandum statement of co-accused Shadab, there is nothing available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned

crime.

Nothing has been seized from his possession. The applicant's name also does not find place in the FIR. The applicant is in custody since 26.01.2022

and the conclusion of trial would take considerably long time. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the application and submits that applicant is a habitual criminal and he is having

several criminal antecedents. He further submits that it is the applicant who provided the country made pistol to co-accused Shadab. Hence the

applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

Having considered the rival submissions and the evidence produced on record and also considering other facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is

allowed.

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) with one solvent

surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Committal Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court/Committal Court with a

condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the

pendency of trial. The applicant shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19)' the concerned jail authority is directed to follow the directions / guidelines issued by

the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8401 of 2022 stands allowed and is disposed of in above terms.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. Certified copy as per Rules.