Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Ashok Kir – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8536 of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C after considering the period of custody and without commenting on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested for the commission of offences under Sections 379, 109, and 120-B of IPC. He had previously been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court but failed to appear, resulting in his arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering the period of custody and the absence of intentional non-appearance, granted bail to the applicant without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant, who had been arrested due to non-appearance after being enlarged on bail, was entitled to be granted bail again.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the period of custody and the circumstances of the applicant's non-appearance, and granted bail without commenting on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, with compliance to the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - With the consent, heard finally.
Perused the case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 14.11.2021 in connection with Crime No.134/2016 registered at Police Station Goutampura, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379, 109 and 120-B of IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief is that in the intervening night of 06-07.07.2016, applicant took complainant's tractor bearing registration No.MP09-aC-6502 without his permission and stolen the same.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court but he could not appear on 30.09.2021 due to which arrest warrant was issued against him and in consequence to which, he has been arrested and is in custody for about 2-1/2 to 3 months. Learned counsel further submits that on 30.09.2021, applicant was in custody in connection with some other matter, due to which he was unable to appear before the Trial Court and arrest warrant was issued against him. His absence was not intentional and therefore, looking to the period of his custody, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant - State has opposed the application and submits that applicant is a habitual offender and about 10 criminal cases are registered against him. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that on 30.09.2021, he was in custody in connection with some other matter and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, overall material produced on record against the applicant and also considering the period of his custody, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19), the concerned Jail authority is directed to follow the directions/guidelines issued by the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.
This application is allowed and stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
The court may grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C considering the period of custody and the circumstances of the applicant's non-appearance, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court granted bail to the applicant based on the ground of parity with a co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail, considering the circumstances of the seizure of the stolen vehicle.
The nature of the stolen property and the circumstances of the case are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.
Grant of bail based on absence of applicant's name in FIR, lack of criminal antecedents, and pendency of trial
The decision emphasized the importance of evidence and identification in determining bail eligibility in theft cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. based on the period of detention, absence of the accused's possession of the incr....
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the absence of seizure from the applicant's possession and the open place of seizure, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the nature of allegations and evidence against the applicant, without commenting on the merits of the matter.
The delay in lodging the FIR and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident were crucial factors in the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The lack of identification of the accused by the complainant and injured party, along with other facts and circumstances of the case, can be considered in granting bail.
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
