Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT INDORE
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Prakash Trivedi - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
MCRC No. 12551 of 2020
Decided On : 21-04-2020
Grant of Bail - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - The court allowed the application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the applicant's health condition, lack of progress in investigation due to Covid-19, and the need to take care of his elderly father.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a case registered under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, citing health issues, lack of progress in investigation due to Covid-19, and the need to care for his elderly father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie force in the applicant's submissions and granted bail, directing the applicant to be released on furnishing a personal bond and surety for his appearance in the Trial Court.
Issues: Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the applicant's health condition, lack of progress in investigation due to Covid-19, and the need to take care of his elderly father as grounds for granting bail.
Final Decision: The application for grant of bail was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety for his appearance in the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on the question of grant of bail.
2. This is an application made by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.
3. Notice of this application was served on the State counsel. Case diary as per the direction of this Court has been produced and it has been perused.
4. The applicant is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 registered with Police Station-Lasudiya, Indore, in Crime No.354/2020.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant was suffering from back pain, therefore, he had gone to the Spa Centre for the treatment and that the applicant is not involved in any immoral activity. He further submits that the offence is triable by the JMFC and that the applicant is in custody since last 39 days and the investigation is not proceeding because of the prevailing Covid-19 infection. He further submits that the applicant is no longer required for the purpose of investigation and that he has to take care of his father, who is aged about 85 years.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail by submitting that the applicant was found in objectionable position in the Spa centre.
7. On perusal of the case diary and considering the circumstances of the case, I find prima facie force in the submissions made by the counsel for applicant. Hence I am of the considered view that the application for grant of bail deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed .
8. The applicant-Prakash Trivedi is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.
9. The applicant will attend each hearing of his trial before the Trial Court out of which this bail arises. Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
AI
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
