Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Bhayyu @ Surila @ Ahsan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4935 of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Release on bail granted to applicant charged with multiple offenses including sections 307, 341, 294, 323, 427, 506, 201, 34 of the IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he/she was arrested in connection with multiple offenses and had been in custody since a specific date.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the submissions and case-diary, found merit in the applicant's contentions and granted bail without commenting on the merits of the matter.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be released on bail despite being charged with multiple offenses and having other cases registered against him/her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of recovery from the applicant, the extended duration of custody, and the fact that bail had been granted to other co-accused in similar cases as reasons to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, with specified conditions to be followed.
JUDGMENT
Subodh Abhyankar, J. - They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.
2. This is the applicant's FIRST application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he / she is arrested in connection with Crime No.112/2022 registered at Police Station-Tarana, District-Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 307, 341, 294, 323, 427, 506, 201, 34 of the IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The applicant is in custody since 25.05.2022.
3. The allegation against the applicant is that he was also involved in the aforesaid offence in which three other accused persons are also involved.
4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the other accused persons Arif Shah and Shahrukh Shah have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 21710/2022 and 43203/2022 dated 5.5.2022 and 8.9.2022 respectively. Counsel has submitted that the complainants have already turned hostile in the court. So far as the present applicant is concerned, even no recovery has been effected from him. It is further submitted that the applicant is lodged in jail since 25.5.2022 and the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant be released on bail.
5. Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that there are 30 other cases registered against the present applicant. However, it is not denied that there are no recovery effected from the applicant.
6. On due consideration of rival submissions and perusal of the case-diary and including the earlier order passed by this Court in the cases of the other co-accused Arif Shah and Sharukh Shah (supra), this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant to allow the present application.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on merits of the matter, the present application for grant of bail is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his / her appearance, as and when directed. It is also directed that the applicant shall be abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 4372(3) of Cr.P.C.
8. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy, as per rules.
The decision to grant bail was based on the likelihood of a long trial duration and the lack of support from material witnesses, as per Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of support from prosecution witnesses and the nature of allegations in allowing the bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The court may grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. considering the period of incarceration, the amount seized from the applicant, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
The court may grant bail based on the contention of parity with a co-accused and the lengthy trial process, while also considering the applicant's criminal antecedents and imposing specific condition....
The court considered the similarity of the applicant's case to that of the co-accused who had been granted bail previously and the likelihood of a lengthy trial as grounds for allowing the bail appli....
The court may grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. based on the applicant's plausible involvement in the offence.
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the nature of injuries, prolonged custody, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial, as per the provisions of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure C....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the grounds of parity with the co-accused, the lack of support from prosecution witnesses, the small amount involved in the possession of the applicant....
The completion of three months in custody and the applicant's acquittal in most of the cases were considered as grounds for allowing the bail application.
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
