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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 25396

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Abhishek – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 32292/2023



Advocates:
Priyank Choubey,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT th ON THE 4 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32292 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

ABHISHEK S/O MAHENDR PRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK NIGOHA P.S NIGOHA DISTT. (UTTAR PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI PRIYANK CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)

AND STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ARAKSHI KENDRA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI S.K. RAI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31062 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. SATYAM TIWARI S/O BHOLANATH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK R/O LALGANJ AJAHRANAYAPAURA P.S. LAGANJ DISTT. PRATAPGARH (UTTAR PRADESH)

2. RAGHUVENDRA SINGH S/O RAJKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O VILLAGE CHOUSA P.S. KUNDA DISTRICT PRATAPGARH (UTTAR PRADESH)

3. RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O RAMNARAYAN VERMA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK R/O KALYANPUR BASKHARI P.S. ASTU DISTRICT (UTTAR PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI PRIYANK CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)

Signature Not Verified AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ARAKSHI KENDRA CANTONMENT DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI S.K. RAI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

These applications coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

These are the first applications filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, who are in jail since 08.07.2023 relating to FIR No.493/2023 registered at Police Station Cantonment District Sagar (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 380, 511 and 420 of the IPC.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. Only attempt was made to commit theft, no offence under section 420 of the IPC is made out against the applicants. In these circumstances, applicants may be granted bail.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for grant of bail. It is submitted that applicants were making attempt to commit theft from ATM. They were tried to break open machine. Since acts of applicants will destruct public services, therefore, though offence is triable by JMFC but they may not be granted bail.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Considering aforesaid circumstances of the case, in view of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, applications filed under section

439 of Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed Signature Not Verified

6. Applicants are liberty to file repeat bail application after a period of four months.

C.C. as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT)

JUDGE pn Signature Not Verified

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