Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
Anand Pathak, J.
Satish Kushwaha - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No.9259 of 2020
Decided On : 29-02-2020
BAIL - Criminal Law - IPC 376, 376(2)(n) - Cr.P.C. 439 - AIR 2019 SC 327, AIR 2019 SC 4010, (2003) 4 SCC 46 - The court allowed the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and directed the release of the applicant on bail with certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn by the court. The applicant claimed that a false case had been registered against him and that he had been in custody since 25.12.2019.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety. The court also imposed specific conditions for the applicant's release.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite being charged under serious sections of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the submissions of both parties and the fact situation of the case, and decided to grant bail to the applicant. The court emphasized that the decision was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant has filed this second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 25.12.2019, in connection with Crime No. 976/2019, registered at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2020 passed by this court.
2. It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that the false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 25.12.2019 whereas charge-sheet has already been filed. Even otherwise, case arises on false promise of marriage.
3. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 327 and in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 4010. He also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and make himself available as and when required. He would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the prosecution witnesses in any manner. He further undertakes to do some community service to purge his misdeeds by ways of planting saplings. Under these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. Learned PP for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as fact situation of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
7. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions:-
1- vkosnd Loa; }kjk fu"ikfnr can i= dh leLr fuca/kuks ,oa 'krksZ dk vuqikyu djsxkA
2- vkosnd vUo"ks.k@fopkj.k esa Ádj.k ,oa funsZ'kkuqlkj lg;ksx djsxkA
3- vkosnd ekeys ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks ÁyksHku] /kedh vFkok opu nsus esa Lo;a dks fyIr ugha djsxk] tks fd mls@mldks ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh ls ÁdVhdj.k djus ls Áofjr djs] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gksA
4- vkosnd ftl vijk/k ds fy, nks"kh gS ml Ádkj dk lekUk vijk/k dkfjr ugha djsxk vkSj Qfj;knh i{k ds fy, fdlh Hkh rjg dh ijs'kkuh vkSj mRihM+u dk fdlh Hkh Ádkj ls dkj.k ugha cusxkA
5- vkosnd fopkj.k ds nkSjku vuko';d LFkxu dh ekax ugha djsxkA
6- vkosnd fopkj.k U;k;ky;@vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dh iwoZ vuqefr ds fcuk Hkkjr ugh NksMsxkA tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gksA
7- ,rn~}kjk ;g funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd 02 ikS/kksa dk ihiy ds isM+ jksi.k djsxk rFkk mls vius vkl&iMksl esa isM+ksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA vkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A ^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ vkosnd fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV Åaps isM+@ikS/kksa dks 3&5 QhV ds xM~Ms esa nck;saA
o`{kksa dh xfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO; gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky; vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugha dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh xfr vkSj vkonsd }kjk vuqikyu ds lca/ak esa ,d fjiksVZ ÁLrqr djus ds fy, funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d laf{kIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁR;sd rhu ekg esa vxys N% eghuksa ds fy, j[kh tk;sxh ftls fd ^^funsZ'k^^ 'kh"kZ ds vraxZr j[kk tk,xkA
o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh pwad vkosnd dks tekur dk
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
