Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1177 (MP)

Mohammed Arif v. State of M. P.

2011-10-14

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2011
JUDGMENT: 1. Shri Dilip Gangarade, Town Inspector present in person. He states that the reply to the notices of contempt issued by this Court have been filed by him on 14th October, 2011 i.e. today. He also apologizes for the delay in filing the reply and has stated in the reply on affidavit that the delay was due to reasons beyond his control. The information was not available with his office since the applicant had compromised the matter in Court without any notice to the police department. 2. In view of the above the contempt notices issued against the said officer are hereby discharged. He has, however, been warned to take care in future and attend the case proceedings as and when required by the Court. 3. The application is taken up for hearing. 4. By this application filed under section 439 of the CrPC, the applicant Mohammed Arif has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No. 230/06 registered by police Station M.G. Road, Indore for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC. 5. Considering the application on merit, on considering the reply, I find that no more cases remain against the present applicant Mohd. Arif and the applicant has been arrested on 24.4.2011 and is in custody for a considerably long time and the trial is also likely to take long time and Counsel prayed for grant of bail. 6. The same has been opposed by the counsel for the respondent State as well as the counsel for the complainant. Counsel for the complainant has still raised doubts regarding the pendency of the criminal case against the applicant. 7. At this juncture, it is directed that in case it comes within the knowledge of the counsel for the complainant that there are criminal cases pending against the applicant except one filed by the complainant himself he shall move an appropriate application before the competent Court for cancellation of the bail. 8. However, with those observations, the application is allowed in the interest of justice considering the young age of the applicant but stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 8. However, with those observations, the application is allowed in the interest of justice considering the young age of the applicant but stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial. 9. By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately. 10. It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of the CrPC. Yogesh Gupta for applicant; Mukesh Saini for respondent/State.