SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 244

ANAND PATHAK
Nadeem Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Padam Singh for petitioner; Ravindra Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent/State; Sameer Kumar Shrivastava for complainant.

ORDER

1. The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 26.2.2022 by Police Station Sironj District Vidisha in connection with Crime No.92/2022 registered for offence under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he is suffering confinement since 26.2.2022 on false pretext and suffers for over implication. No role of the applicant can be assigned in specific terms in commission of offence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant raised the point that incident is dated 24.2.2022 and memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act of applicant was taken on 26.2.2022 at 7:10 pm. Weapon (stick) was seized from the applicant same day at 8:15 pm which is reflected from the property seizure memo, whereas applicant was arrested at 8:45 pm which is clear from the arrest memo of the applicant. According to learned counsel, it is improbable to take memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act and to seize weapon used in the crime at the instance of applicant prior to his Arrest. It appears that false case has been registered against the applicant. He relied upon the judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top