SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13180

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, J
Vasimullah Pathan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 16162/2024



Advocates:
Prabodh Pareek,Advocate General

Bail granted under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. due to lack of evidence for further custody and conditions imposed to ensure compliance and prevent tampering.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail for offence under Section 392 of IPC, claiming innocence and false implication - FIR registered against unknown persons, no T.I.P. conducted - Applicant in custody since 01.02.2024, charge-sheet filed - No further custodial interrogation required - Permanent resident, no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence - Bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with conditions. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Conditions for Bail - Applicant must comply with bond terms, cooperate in investigation/trial, refrain from influencing witnesses, avoid similar offences, not seek unnecessary adjournments, and not leave India without permission. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused in Crime No. 29 of 2024 for robbery under IPC Section 392, asserting innocence and claiming false implication, with no identification conducted.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing the lack of evidence for further custody and the applicant's ties to the community.

Issues: The main issues include the applicant's claim of false implication, the absence of identification procedures, and the conditions for granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the applicant's continued custody was unnecessary given the circumstances and the conditions imposed would mitigate risks associated with bail.

Result: Bail granted.

ORDER

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No. 29 of 2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and h a s been falsely implicated. FIR is registered against unknown persons, however, T.I.P. has not been conducted. Under these circumstances, prosecution story in respect to present applicant becomes doubtful in the light of the fact that as per prosecution story, person who committed offence came with is face covered with a cloth. It is further argued that applicant is in custody since 01.2.2024. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no requirement of further custodial interrogation of the applicant. Further argument is that applicant is the permanent resident of District Guna (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State opposed the bail application citing criminal history of the applicant and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

  • ) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused. In case offence of same nature is repeated, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled;

5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top