Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Sameer @ Balli – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5419 of 2022
Decided On : 31-01-2022
Bail - Offences under IPC - Enlargement of applicant on bail
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested for making anti-national slogans during a procession and was charged under various sections of the IPC. The applicant claimed false implication and sought bail due to the time-consuming trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered that the applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR, and his criminal antecedents were not provided. The charge sheet had been filed, and the court, without commenting on the merits of the case, allowed the application for bail.
Issues: Implication of the applicant, seriousness of the offences alleged, entitlement to bail
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR, lack of details of his criminal antecedents, and the pendency of trial, leading to the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The application for bail was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, with compliance to the provisions of Cr.P.C. The concerned Jail authority was directed to follow COVID-19 guidelines before releasing the applicant.
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.638/2021, registered at Police Station - Jivajiganj, District Ujjain (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 124-a, 153-a, 188, 505(2) and 34 of IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.08.2021 at about 22:15 PM applicant along with other co-accused persons made anti-national slogans during Muharram procession.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that S.I. Pramod Bhadoriya in his complaint did not mention the name of the applicant. Independent witness akhilesh Sharma in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has also not mentioned name of the applicant. Applicant has falsely been implicated in the matter. He is in custody since 20.08.2021. Trial will take time for its conclusion, therefore, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the application and submitted that in the video clipping of the incident applicant was identified as one of the accused in the crime. Offences alleged against him are serious in nature. He is habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Having considered the rival submissions and fact that applicant's name has not been mentioned in the FIR, details of his criminal antecedents have also not been filed, charge sheet has been filed in the matter, therefore, considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the 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 M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
Grant of bail based on absence of applicant's name in FIR, lack of criminal antecedents, and pendency of trial
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.
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.
The court may grant bail to an applicant based on the nature of the accusation and the lack of criminal antecedents, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court considered the delayed FIR, lack of support from the medical report, and overall material produced on record in granting bail to the applicant without commenting on the merits of the case.
The nature of the stolen property and the circumstances of the case are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.
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 key legal principle established is that bail may be granted based on the circumstances of false implication and the lengthy trial process.
The decision emphasized the importance of evidence and identification in determining bail eligibility in theft cases.
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
