Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Anjuli Palo, J.
Kundan & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 30182 of 2020
Decided On : 14-10-2020
Bail - False Implication - COVID-19 Pandemic - The court granted bail to the applicants, who were falsely implicated in a case under Sections 394/34 of the IPC, considering the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the likelihood of trial taking considerable time.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed a second application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. after their first application was dismissed. They were arrested in connection with a case under Sections 394/34 of the IPC and claimed to be falsely implicated due to a money dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the likelihood of trial taking considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: False implication, COVID-19 pandemic impact on trial duration, bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial duration and the possibility of the applicants being falsely implicated, leading to the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The court directed the release of the applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and solvent surety, with compliance to the provisions of Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT
Anjuli Palo, J. - Learned counsel for the objector has submitted that he has filed Vakatnama on behalf of the complainant by provisional I.D. No.44710/2020 and he has no objection, if applicants are granted bail.
2. This is second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.218/2020 registered at Police Station-Surkhi, District- Sagar for commission of offence under Sections 394/34 of the IPC.
3. First application of the applicants was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.8.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.25424/2020.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. They are in custody since 29.06.2020. The complainant has filed an affidavit stating that due to some dispute about money, he had called the police on the spot and thereafter, the applicants were arrested by the police. It is also submitted that due to outbreak of Corona Virus pandemic, trial will take considerable time, hence, it is prayed that applicants be released on bail.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has strongly opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that due to COVID 19 pandemic situation, the trial would take considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. It is directed that applicants Kundan, Prakash, Koushal and Prabhu be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their appearance on the dates so fixed by that Court during trial.
7. The applicants shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
