Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1602 (MP)

Deepak v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-12-26

RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajendra Kumar (Verma), J. - This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant has been implicated in connection with Crime No.624/2022, registered at Police Station - Nanakheda, District Ujjain (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC. The applicant is in custody since 30/10/2022. 2. As per prosecution case, on some petty issue co-accused Harshu, Lokesh Bhat and five other persons came to the Hotel where the complainant along with his Uncle was working and they started abusing them. The act of the co-accused was opposed by the uncle of complainant. Thereafter, accused Harshu and Lokesh have took out knives and caused injuries to the body of Vinod. Other accused persons assaulted the Vinod with kicks and fists. Accordingly, a case has been registered against the accused persons. On the basis of the memorandum Section 27 of the Evidence Act, present applicant has been implicated in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. There is no legal evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Present applicant is implicated in the offence only on the basis of the memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by the co-accused. It is the co-accused Lokesh and Harshu, who have caused injury to the victim and there is no role attributed to the present applicant. No Test Identification Parade has been conducted by the Investigating Agency to strengthen the fact that the applicant was a part of the alleged incident. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is in custody since 30/10/2022. Conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Under such circumstances, he prays for grant of bail. 4. O n the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection. 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, on a perusal of the material available on record including the case diary, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. 6. 4. O n the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection. 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, on a perusal of the material available on record including the case diary, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. 6. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. 7. This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial, but in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench. 8. The M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy, as per rules.