Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1063 (MP)

Sunil v. State of M. P.

2012-10-16

SHEEL NAGU

body2012
Judgment Sheel Nagu, J.;- 1. Case Diary is perused. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 2. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr. P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kotwali, District Morena in connection with Crime No. 568/2012 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 386, 294, 506B, 34 120B of IPC and Section 11/13 MPDVPK Act. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. 4. Considering the facts that applicant is in custody since 06.08.2012 and investigation is complete and the prosecution story discloses that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. but subsequently been implicated by the confessional statement of the co-accused Raju and Dinesh recorded under Section 27 and there are no criminal antecedent of the applicant and an early conclusion of trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of the liberty, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. 5. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. 6. 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 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. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. C.c. as per rules.