The court emphasized that an applicant cannot be denied bail solely based on implications without substantial evidence, especially when not named in the FIR.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 326, 323, 294, 324, 506/34 - Bail application - Applicant implicated based on memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, despite not being named in FIR or statement under Section 161 - Identification parade conducted where applicant was identified - Court grants bail considering lack of direct mention in FIR. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court must consider the nature of the allegations, the evidence against the applicant, and the likelihood of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was implicated in a case involving a dispute leading to physical assault, with allegations of injury caused by a knife. The applicant has been in custody since 29.1.2024, and the investigation is complete with a charge sheet filed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant was entitled to bail due to the absence of his name in the FIR and the nature of the evidence against him.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant's involvement was sufficiently established and the appropriateness of granting bail under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct mention in the FIR and the reliance on a co-accused's statement were significant factors in favor of granting bail, emphasizing that the applicant should not be denied bail solely based on implications without substantial evidence.

Result: Application allowed; bail granted.

ORDER

This is first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C . filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.597/2023 registered at Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore (M.P.) under Sections 326, 323, 294, 324, 506/34 of IPC .

Complainant Shadab Khan on 31.5.2023 has lodged a report that he is working as a mechanic and he received a call from Aqib Mansuri. He said that there is a dispute at Rajwada between Aqib and his friends and he was asked to reach at Green Park Square main gate. When he reached, Amir, Mohsin @ Kala and his friends Aqib and Anas were started abusing and committed marpit. At this stage it is alleged that co-accused Amir had caused injury to the injured with the help of knife.

Counsel for applicant submits that the name of the applicant was not mentioned either in the FIR or in the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C . He has been implicated on the basis of memorandum u/S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act . The co-accused Amir had stated that the present applicant was also present at the spot. He is in jail since 29.1.2024. The investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed.

Counsel for State opposed the prayer and submits that identification parade was conducted and the applicant has been identified.

After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration that the name of the applicant was not mentioned either in FIR or in statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C , he has been implicated on the basis of memorandum u/S.27 of the co-accused and his presence has been alleged at the spot, 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 application is allowed.

It is directed that Applicant 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. 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 12787

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHSHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, JMohd. Tokir – AppellantVersusThe State Of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentMCRC 11814/2024

The court emphasized that an applicant cannot be denied bail solely based on implications without substantial evidence, especially when not named in the FIR.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
Mohd. Tokir – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 11814/2024