Back
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Dilip Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard through Video Conferencing.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29/07/2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Umariya, in Criminal Revision No. 09/2020, whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's revision petition and affirmed the order dated 29/06/2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Umariya in Criminal Case No. 656/2019, whereby the learned CJM rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
2. It appears from the record that applicant is facing trial in Criminal Case No. 656/2019 which is pending before the CJM, Umariya for the offence punishable under Sections 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that, on 17.10.2019 Sub-Inspector Nowrozabad, received an information that some persons are transporting liquor without valid permit, thereafter, police officials reached the spot. Present applicant-accused was coming on a motor cycle. He was stopped and the motor cycle was checked and 54 bulk litres of country made liquor was seized from his possession. Pursuant to that, FIR was regi
The statutory right given to the accused under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. cannot be taken away based solely on previous criminal antecedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. make it obligatory to release the accused if the trial for a non-bailable offence is not concluded....
The statutory right given to the accused under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. cannot be taken away, and the trial court must release the accused if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period.
The right to be released on bail under Section 437(6) of the Code is not absolute but subject to the discretion of the Magistrate, to be exercised in exceptional cases.
The court emphasized that Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. is not mandatory but directory, and the accused is entitled to apply for bail if the trial is not completed within sixty days, unless there are....
The court established that the discretionary nature of bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. allows for denial even if the trial exceeds 60 days, based on the circumstances of the case.
The court clarified that the provision of section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory and the magistrate has discretion to refuse bail after recording reasons. The court also emphasized the importance....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an accused is not entitled to statutory bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. as a matter of right, and the provision does not confer an indefeasi....
Grant of bail based on the amount of seized liquor and period of custody, without commenting on the merits of the case.
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
