Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J.
Dharmendra Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 16714 of 2020
Decided On : 11-09-2020
Bail - Theft Offenses - The court allowed the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the applicant charged with offenses under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC, considering the lack of evidence linking the applicant to the theft and the inability of the State to confirm the identification of the stolen articles by the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was in jail for offenses under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC related to a theft in the house of the victim. The applicant claimed innocence and sought bail due to the lengthy trial process.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the arguments from both parties, acknowledged the criminal past of the applicant but found insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the theft. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail to the applicant based on the lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the theft despite the criminal past.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence confirming the identification of the stolen articles by the victim and the lengthy trial process, leading to the grant of bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the release of the applicant on bail with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. - Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant- Dharmendra Gupta.
2. The applicant is in jail since 24/04/2020 in connection with Crime No.187/2020 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that, in the intervening night of 13.04.2020 and 14.04.2020, the applicant entered into the house of the victim and made away with some money and jewellery . In the morning, when the victim found that theft has been committed in his house, he reported the matter to the concerned police station and police apprehended the applicant and seized the theft articles.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed. It is also submitted that no identification of the seized articles was conducted during investigation and no sufficient materials are available on record which shows that applicant made a theft in the house of the victim. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2020 and trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarge on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the application. He submits that the applicant is having a criminal past and on this ground, prays for dismiss the application.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties. No doubt, the applicant is having a criminal past but so far as, the present case is concerned, the State was not in a position to say that whether theft articles have been identified by the victim or not, therefore, considering the material available on record, this Court is now inclined to release the applicant on bail.
7. Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant stands allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant-Dharmendra Gupta shall be released on bail on 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 his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
10. Jail authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the applicant.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
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
