Back
DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
Aarju – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - At the outset, learned State counsel apprised this Court that respondent no.2/complainant has been informed with regard to pendency of this appeal as required under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") but despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the complainant.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Act against the impugned order dated 28/12/2022 passed by Special Judge (under the Act), Gwalior whereby appellants' application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.
3. The appellants have been arrested on 24/12/2022 in connection with Crime No.698/2022 registered at Police Station- Gola Ka Mandir, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 306, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(V)(A) of the Act.
4. Allegations against the appellants and other co-accused, in short, are that appellants alongwith other co-accused person used to torture the deceased-Jayshriram Mujauriya who was a retired Sub-Inspector and threaten to implicate in
The court applied the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and considered the facts and circumstances of the case in granting bail to the appellants.
The court considered the period of custody and the circumstances of the case in allowing the bail application, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The Court's decision emphasized the importance of cooperation in trial proceedings and compliance with imposed conditions for granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The court's decision emphasized the grant of anticipatory bail and the appellant's cooperation in the trial, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of cooperation in the trial and adherence to the conditions of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The court considered the duration of custody and the expected trial timeline in granting bail to the appellant.
The court considered the length of time the appellant had been in custody and the expected duration of the trial in granting bail.
The compromise between the parties and the acquittal from certain charges can be considered as changed circumstances warranting bail, and the court may impose specific conditions for the release of t....
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
