Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Mukamsingh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8396 of 2022
Decided On : 16-02-2022
Bail - Theft - The court granted bail to the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering that the stolen items were not found in their possession and the complainant did not identify them during TIP.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were seeking bail in connection with a theft case where they were accused of stealing various items from the complainant without permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the stolen items were not seized from the applicants' possession, and the complainant did not identify them during TIP. Therefore, the court granted bail to the applicants without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite being accused of theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of evidence linking the stolen items to the applicants and the fact that the complainant did not identify them during TIP as grounds for granting bail.
Final Decision: The applicants No.1 and 3 were directed to be released on bail with certain conditions to ensure their appearance before the Trial Court/Committal Court.
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - This is first bail application filed by the applicants namely; applicant No.1 Mukamsingh S/o Gulab Dawar and applicant No.3 Bansingh S/o Suku Dawar under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.419/2021 registered at Police-Station - amjhera, District - Dhar (MP) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the applicant is in custody since 24.09.2021.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 03.09.2021 at about 7:15 pm, the applicants along with co-accused Mukesh S/o Jaharsingh took the mobile phone, gold mangalsutra, earring tops, silver rings and payal from the possession of complainant as well as of his wife without their permission and stolen the same.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that nothing has been seized from the possession of present applicants.
During TIP applicants were not identified by the complainant. applicants have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. The applicants are in custody since 24.09.2021 and the conclusion of trial would take considerably long time. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the application and submits that the stolen property, mobile phone as well as jewelries have been seized from the possession of present applicants. Hence the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.
Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record and the fact that the applicants were not identified by the complainant during TIP and also considering other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
The applicants No.1 and 3 are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one solvent surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Committal Court for their regular appearance before the Trial Court/Committal Court with a condition that they shall remain present before the Court concerned on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. The applicants shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Iniew 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 applicants.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8396 of 2022 stands allowed and is disposed of in above terms.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. Certified copy as per Rules.
The decision emphasized the importance of evidence and identification in determining bail eligibility in theft cases.
The nature of the stolen property and the circumstances of the case are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.
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 main legal point established is that the period of detention and lack of criminal antecedents can be considered in granting bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court considered the length of detention, likelihood of a lengthy trial, absence of possibility of absconding or tampering with the prosecution case, and the directive from the Supreme Court in a....
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the duration of custody and the applicant's role as the sole bread earner of his family.
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 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.
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
