Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Anil Verma, J.
Jafar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 57681 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Bail Application - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicants based on the fact that their names were not mentioned in the FIR, they were not purchasers or attesting witnesses regarding the sale of the truck, and the investigation was almost over.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as they were in custody in connection with an offence under sections 420, 406, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, and the arguments of both parties, decided to release the applicants on bail, noting that their names were not mentioned in the FIR and they were not directly involved in the alleged offence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants should be granted bail despite being in custody for the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the applicants' names were not mentioned in the FIR, they were not purchasers or attesting witnesses regarding the sale of the truck, and the investigation was almost over.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the applicants to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Anil Verma, J. - This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicants for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 16.11.2022 in connection with Crime No.742/2022 registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under sections 420, 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code of 1860.
2. As per prosecution story, present applicant introduced co-accused to complainant Poonamchand. Thereafter co-accused purchased one truck bearing registration No. MH-18-AA-8099 in the year 2019. As per the terms of the agreement, co-accused Rajesh did not pay the installment of truck to the concerned bank. Thereafter complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Dhamnod, district Dhar. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this offence. They are in custody since 16.11.2022. Applicant Irfan's name has not mentioned in the FIR. Both the applicants are not purchaser of the said truck, even they are not attesting witnesses and they did not give any money to the complainant. Investigation is almost over, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. Both the applicants are permanent resident of Dhar district. Hence, he prays that both the applicants be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.
5. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also taking note of the fact that present applicant's name has not found in the FIR, they are neither purchaser nor attesting witnesses regarding the sale of the aforesaid truck, investigation is almost over and final conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time, in view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to release the applicants on bail.
6. Therefore, the application is allowed. It is directed that applicants be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. They shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
7. Certified copy as per rules.
The court may grant bail based on the lack of criminal antecedent, the period of custody, and the ground of parity with co-accused, considering the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the trial....
The court considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the delay in FIR, and the time spent by the applicant in jail in granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to grant bail was based on the lack of evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence, non-identification by the victim d....
Bail is a right and should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, with the primary purpose of detention being to secure the accused's attendance at trial.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure attendance, not punishment.
Granting bail based on the lack of legal evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, the lengthy trial process, and the nature of the offence.
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
