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

2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 12555

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Binod Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 51960/2022



Advocates:
Arubendra Singh Parihar,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51960 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

1. BINOD SINGH S/O SHRI DULICHANDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KARAHI KHURD P.S. AND TEHSIL UNCHEHARA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAJ @ RAHUL VERMAN S/O SHRI RAMESH PRASAD VERMAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O VILLAGE KARAHI KHURD, POLICE STATION AND TAHSIL UNCHEHARA, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI A.S.PARIHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. UNCHEHARA DISTRICT SATNA M.P.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI, DY.G.A.)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the applicants for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.399/2022 registered at Police Station Unchehara District Satna for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506, 307 and

34 of IPC.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA It is submitted that applicants and complainant having agricultural land adjoining to each other. There was some dispute arose due to overflowing the water and all of a sudden the present applicants by means of Lathi assaulted the complainant, due to which he received injuries on the vital parts of body. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents. He submits that there was no intention to kill the injured, it was only a sudden provocation. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, counsel for State has opposed the bail application stating that looking to the injuries and period of custody at this juncture, present applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. He submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the applicant no.1 but so far as other applicants are concerned, no information is available in the diary about their criminal antecedents.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case looking to the injuries and period of custody, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

Therefore, without commenting anything on merits, application is allowed It is directed that applicants be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for their appearance on the dates given by it.

It is further directed that the applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA JUDGE sushma Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top