Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Vikram – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1894 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2022
Bail Application - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant, considering the absence of the applicant's name in the complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the FIR, and the fact that the applicant had been in custody since 09/10/2021.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. as he had been in custody since 09/10/2021 in connection with various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the applicant, noting the absence of the applicant's name in the complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the FIR, and considering the length of time the applicant had been in custody.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of the applicant's name in the complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the FIR, and the length of time the applicant had been in custody, influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released upon furnishing a personal bond. The court also directed the prison authorities to ensure compliance with the order passed by the Supreme Court regarding the examination of the applicant for COVID-19 symptoms before his release.
JUDGMENT
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. - This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 09/10/2021 in connection with Crime No.881/2021 registered at Police Manawar, District Dhar (M.P.) under Sections 458, 294, 323, 427, 506, 34, 307, 354-a and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 67 and 67-a of the Information Technology act, 2000.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the statement of complainant Kusumbai recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she has not named present applicant Vikram. The name of the present applicant has also not named in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is in jail since 09/10/2021, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
It is directed that applicant - Vikram S/o Nemichand @ Nemu shall be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Court below.
The prison authorities are also requested to ensure compliance with the order passed by the Supreme Court IN RE : CONTaGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU "W.P. (C) No.1/2020" and ensure that the applicant is examined by the jail doctor before his release. If the applicant shows symptoms of COVID-19, the doctor shall forthwith direct him to be produced before the appropriate hospital designated for the detection and treatment of COVID-19 patients. If the doctor is of the opinion that the applicant is not affected with the virus, the jail authorities shall ensure his transportation from the jail till his place of residence.
It is further made clear that if it is found that the applicant is involved in any other case during the trial, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Court and the Police will be at liberty to arrest the applicant.
a typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the advocate General, on their email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Ld. Court below.
Certified copy as per rules.
The absence of the applicant's name in the complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the FIR, and the length of time the applicant had been in custody, were key factors in ....
The lack of seizure from the applicant and the completion of the investigation can be considered as grounds for granting bail in certain cases.
The completion of investigation, filing of chargesheet, and the lack of criminal antecedents are key considerations in granting bail.
The completion of investigation, grant of bail to a co-accused under similar circumstances, and the allegations in the dying declaration are influential factors in the court's decision to grant bail.
The quantity of contraband, filing of charge-sheet, and criminal record of the applicant are key factors in determining the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
Granting bail based on completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet, along with consideration of the circumstances of the case.
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the unprecedented situation of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on the situation of the jails, justifying the release of the petitioner on bai....
The absence of criminal records, filing of the charge sheet, and prima facie case for bail influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the applicants.
The completion of investigation, filing of chargesheet, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of FSL report on the spurious liquor were crucial in granting bail to the applicant.
The court considered the prolonged pre-trial incarceration, delay in trial, and the health condition of the applicant as grounds for granting bail, while also taking into account the non-cooperation ....
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
