Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sameem @ Raju Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.
07/10/2014
Shri counsel for the applicant.
Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM Cr.R. 2098/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Dharmendra Soni, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents.
Learned counsel for applicant prays some time to move an application to convert the present criminal revision into a leave application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed, application be moved within a week.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 3324/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Anil Lala, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. It appears that the applicant did not comply the previous orders of this court and no amendment has been made in memo of bail application, however, as prayed by counsel for the applicant seven working days time is granted to make amendment in the application. If such modification is not made within given period, the present application filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 5791/2014.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. It appears that none has appeared for the applicant on 05/05/2014 and on 18/07/2014, it appears that learned counsel for applicant does not want to prosecute the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant Sameem @ Arju Khan, is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 12486/2014.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Heard on I.A. No. 18001/2014 an application for amendment in the memo of bail application. Application is allowed. Proposed amendment be incorporated within seven working days also the other defaults pointed out by the office shall be cured within that stipulated period. If the compliance is not made within given period, application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 14176/2014.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. None appeared for the applicant on 25/09/2014 and none appeared for the applicant on today. It appears that learned counsel for applicant does not want to prosecute this application.
Consequently, the present application for restoration of previous application is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 14501/2014.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Though the counsel for the applicant is not present a week's time is granted to remove the default and if the default is not removed within a week application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 14588/2014 07/10/2014 Shri S.S. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Budhha @ Shiv Prasad , is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 14533/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri M. Saffiqullah, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. As prayed by counsel for the applicant seven working days time is granted to remove the default.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 14677/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Ajay Sen, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. As prayed by counsel for the applicant a week's time is granted to remove the default.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 15024/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Ashish Sinha, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. As prayed by counsel for the applicant a week's time is granted to remove the default.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 15443/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri S.D. Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of maintainability of the present petition.
If the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed then no application for recalling of the order is maintainable. The office is properly raised the objection that the present petition is not maintainable.
Consequently, the present application for recalling the order dated 14/02/2014 is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 4534/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays some time to remove the default.
It appears that on 02/05/2014 it was directed that the default be removed within a week and if it is not removed within a week then the present petition shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution, without referring to the Court. It appears that by mistake case was again listed on 28/08/2014 a fresh time of 10 days was granted to remove the default, however, the default could not be removed thereafter. Under such circumstances, no further time can be granted to remove the default. The present bail application is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution.
The Principal Registrar, Judicial is directed to obtain explanation of concerned D.A. who did not comply the order dated 02/05/2014. The explanation be submitted in Chamber before me within two weeks.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM Cr.R. No. 871/2008.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant even in the second round. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.
The applicant is not appearing since 07/12/2012. It is a case of bail jump.
Let a warrant of arrest bailable in nature in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- be issued to secure his presence before this Court on the next date of hearing.
S.P. Jabalpur is directed to observe the strict compliance of this order.
Case be listed for appearance of the applicant on 10/11/2014.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM Cr.R. No. 653/2010.
07/10/2014 Shri Ashish Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Applicant is absent since 24/08/2011. After giving 3-4 opportunities he could not be produced.
Let a warrant of arrest bailable in nature in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- be issued to secure his presence before this Court on the next date of hearing.
S.P. Sehore is directed to observe the strict compliance of this order.
Case be listed for appearance of the applicant on 30/10/2014.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 13329/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.
It appears that an application has been moved for grant of anticipatory bail relating to complaint case wherein the complainant is not made party.
The applicant is directed to add the complainant as respondent no. 2 by moving an application.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 15236/2014.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant even in the second round. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Case diary is available.
In the absence of the counsel for the applicant, case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 15036/2014.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant even in the second round. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.
Case diary is available.
In the absence of the counsel for the applicant, case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 6332/2014 07/10/2014 Shri S.P. Mishra Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1-State.
None for the respondent no. 2 though notice of this application is served upon him.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7323/2014 07/10/2014 Shri M.S. Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for applicant prays to withdraw this application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Ajay Prakash, because the trial is over.
Prayer is allowed. Application is hereby dismissed being infructuous.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7368/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Rahul Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Shri Sanklap Kochar, counsel for the objector. Case diary is available.
Counsel for applicant submits that his senior is out of station and therefore, matter may be adjourned.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head on 09/10/2014 along with M.Cr.C. No. 9188/2014.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 9188/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri Rahul Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Shri Sanklap Kochar, counsel for the objector. Case diary is available.
Counsel for applicant submits that his senior is out of station and therefore, matter may be adjourned.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head on 09/10/2014 along with M.Cr.C. No. 7368/2014.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 10066/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri K.L. Prajapati, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is available.
Vide order dated 12/09/2014 it was directed that FSL report relating to articles seized from the applicant be also produced and therefore, learned Panel Lawyer is directed to call for the FSL report and be placed before this court on the next date of hearing.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 10403/2014.
07/10/2014 Ms. Savita Choudhary, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 10544/2014 07/10/2014 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Ashish Singh, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 10808/2014.
07/10/2014 Shri D.N. Shukla, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Learned Panel Lawyer prays for some time to get the FSL report of the articles seized from the applicant.
Prayer is allowed. On the next date of hearing FSL report be placed before this court otherwise it will be presumed that the prosecution does not want to show FSL report in the case.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014.
Copy of this order be provided to the learned Panel Lawyer for compliance.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 11077/2014.
07/10/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7884/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Brijendra Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7894/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7896/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.P. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7900/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7904/2014 09/06/2014 Shri P.K. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has copy of the charge-sheet with the help of such papers case may be considered.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 17.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 323/2014 registered at Police Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenders Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him. Though the case is triable by the Court of Special Court but it is not punishable by life imprisonment or death sentence. Sufficient time will be required for its disposal. The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under such circumstances counsel for applicant prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Mukesh Kol may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court Rampur Naikin, to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7909/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that looking to the nature of the case, it may be considered with the help of copy of the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 5.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 98/2014 registered at Police Station Orchha, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a youth of 25 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him. The case is triable by the Court of JMFC and therefore, it is not so grave. Sufficient time will be required for its disposal. The presence of the applicant is no more required in the investigation. The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under such circumstances he prays for bail.
Learned Government Advocate informs that 65 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Arvind Yadav may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7913/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Pradeep Narvariya, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7916/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7919/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7925/2014 09/06/2014 Shri M.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7928/2014 09/06/2014 Shri R.B. Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that looking to the nature of the case, it may be considered with the help of copy of the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 15.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 343/2014 registered at Police Station Sarni, District Betul for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him. The case is triable by the Court of JMFC and therefore, it is not so grave. Sufficient time will be required for its disposal. The presence of the applicant is no more required in the investigation. The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under such circumstances he prays for bail.
Learned Government Advocate informs that 60 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sandeep @ Manoj may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7733/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Jafar Khan, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 1.4.2014 relating to Crime No.39/2014 registered at Police Station Kesli, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 450 & 376(Gh) of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. Prosecutrix is shown to be 40 years old married woman. No external and internal injuries are found on the person of the prosecutrix. FIR was lodged with the delay of 2 days. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. He is in custody without any substantial reasons. Consequently, he prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Bihari may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty thousand thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sagar to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7728/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Sandesh Dixit, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 13.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 138/2014 registered at Police Station Gwarighat, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. The case is triable by the Court of JMFC but it is no so grave and sufficient time will be required for its disposal. The presence of the applicant is not required for investigation. The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under such circumstances he prays for bail.
Learned Government Advocate informs that 63 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Lalji Choudhary may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7717/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Arvind Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 12.05.2014 relating to Crime No.362/2014 registered at Police Station Govindpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307, 506, 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. Initially, it is alleged against the applicant that he quarreled with the victim Shekhar Bhadoriya and assaulted him by a rod and the co-accused assaulted the intervenor Somnath with the help of sharp cutting weapon on his chest and abdomen. One fatal injury was found which was caused by the co-accused. The applicant was not aware that the co-accused would assault the intervenor in such a manner, and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with he help of Section 34 of IPC whereas remaining offences are bailable. He is in custody without any substantial reasons. Consequently, he prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the applicant viz. Utkarsh Bhargav, may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Bhopal to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7715/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Pawan Gurgar, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sunil Kumar Rahangdale, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7710/2014.
09.06.2014 Shri H.S. Rajput, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for applicants submits that looking to the nature of case it may be decided with the help of copy of impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.1/2014 registered at Police Station, Mahila Police Station Civil Line, Sagar District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC & 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality and they do not have any criminal past. The applicant no.1 is an old person of 64 years of age. Actually the complainant who was daughter-in-law of the applicant no. 1 and wife of the applicant no. 2 was residing with applicant no. 2. Brother of the complainant had uploaded obscene photographs of sister of the applicant no. 2 and therefore, quarrel started. Before Parivar Paramarsh the complainant was summoned and she was directed to reside with the applicant no. 2 thereafter, the complainant lodged a false FIR against the applicants to harass them. The offence is triable by JMFC but it is not so grave. The co-accused Smt. Manjula Jain wife of applicant no. 1 and Ku. Bharti Jain @ Lali daughter of applicant no. 1 were released on bail vide order dated 22/05/2014 in M.Cr.C. 7317/2014. Under such circumstances applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature on the ground of parity.
Learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the application.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Consequently, the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants namely Devendra Kumar Jain & Deepam Jain be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.GUPTA) V.JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7897/2014 09/06/2014 Ku. Gayatri Ladhiya, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Learned Government Advocate informs that application of the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 16/04/2014 and therefore, it is for the applicant to mention particulars of the previous application in this case.
Case is adjourned.
Learned counsel for applicant is directed to mention the particulars of the previous application in the memo of present application within a week.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7954/2014.
09.06.2014 Shri N. Ashar, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.188/2014 registered at Police Station, Cantt., District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are old persons of 65, 60 and 62 years of age and they do not have any criminal past. The deceased was daughter-in-law of the applicants who died after 12 years of her marriage. No presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act is applicable in the present case. The allegations made against the applicants do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore, no offence under Sections 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with he help of Section 34 of IPC. The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants. Under these circumstances, they pray for anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Consequently, the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants namely Khemchand Patel, Smt. Asharani and Smt. Chandra Prabha be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.GUPTA) V.JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7946/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.
Learned Panel Lawyer prays for sometime to get the disputed sale deed in the case diary. Prayer is allowed. It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that complete case diary be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7984/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 8099/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 5661/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.D. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6144/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Pushpendra Dubey Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Om Prakash Vishwakarma, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn with a liberty that it may be filed after three months.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6190/2014 09/06/2014 Shri P.K. Saxena, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6223/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 24.3.2014 relating to Crime No.103/2014 registered at Police Station Amlai District Shahdol for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(Ka), 368, 376(2)(jha), 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. Prosecutrix is shown to be 17 to 19 years of age in the Ossification Test and therefore she is above 18 years of age. As per allegations she remained with the applicant for 3 days without any resistance. No external and internal injuries are found on the person of the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that either the prosecutrix was a consenting parity or the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. He is in custody without any substantial reasons. Consequently, he prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6375/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashok Chakraverty, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Dinesh Prajapati, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6479/2014 09/06/2014 Shri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Bhima & Limda, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6626/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Prahlad Choudhary, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicants are in custody since 11.4.2014 relating to Crime No. 44/1082 registered at Police Station South Samanya Van Mandal Lougour, Balaghat, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 2(16)(K) 2 (35), 9, 50, 51 Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens, who have no criminal past alleged against them. The case is triable by the Court of JMFC but sufficient time will be required for its disposal. The applicants cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under such circumstances counsel for applicants prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Montu Agrawal, Sumer Singh and Sukhchand may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6652/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.
Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6766/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Rajkumar Choudhary, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7029/2014 09/06/2014 Shri H.S. Dubey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Raja Jatav & Raju Katiya, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7126/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.N. Saraf, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State. Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7238/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 5.4.2014 relating to Crime No.47/2014 registered at Police Station Bhangarh District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 136 of Electricity Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. Though the case is triable by the Court of Special Court but it is not punishable by life imprisonment or death sentence. Sufficient time will be required for its disposal. The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under such circumstances counsel for applicant prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Veer Singh Lodhi may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7259/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Y.K. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Case diary is available.
Counsel for applicant prays for time to argue the matter.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 30/06/2014 with the direction that case diary be returned and it may be made available before three days prior to the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.5913/2014 19/5/2014 Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Adv. for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head after a week with the direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.4370/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Case diary is available.
As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned It be listed under same head in the next week.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.3421/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head after a week with the direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5728/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Devesh Khatri, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Adv. for the respondent- State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Mueen @ Muveen Sodagar is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.6394/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Adv. for the respondent- State/ respondent No.4.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has moved an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.1, 2 and 3 vide order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur.
The facts of the case in short are that the prosecutrix alleged against one Qasim Khan her brother-in-law that he committed rape on her. Thereafter a typed report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police that respondents No.1, 2 and 3 gave their consent so that the main accused may have relation with the prosecutrix.
Looking to the allegations made against the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, it cannot be said that it was not a good case for grant of bail and therefore, if learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 then it cannot be said that any illegality or perversity has been done by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur. There is no allegation that the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have misused the bail granted to them. Under such circumstances, no case is made out so that the order dated 29.3.2014 may be set aside and the application under Section 439(2) filed by the applicant Gosiya Khan may be allowed.
Consequently, application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Gosiya Khan is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5339/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Adv. for the respondent- State.
Case diary is not available.
Case is adjourned.
It be listed under same head after a week with the direction that case diary be called and be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing positively.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5406/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri S. Datt for the applicant.
Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case diary of Crime No.511/2013 registered at Police Station Vishwavidyalaya District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 327. 294, 323, 506- II/34 and 302 of IPC is perused.
The applicant is arrested in the aforesaid crime on 27.3.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He is a student of BBA Course and if he is not released his studies would be spoiled. There is allegation against 8 accused persons. They assaulted the victim by stick and rod. The deceased Vivesh Singh @ Seetu died due to head injury. It is no where alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the victim on his head by any weapon and therefore, no offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC. Remaining offences are not so grave. The applicant is in custody since 27.3.2014 without any substantial reason. Under such circumstances, he prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Akhilesh Singh may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5270/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the State informs that the case diary is not available. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has the copy of charge sheet, and therefore the matter may be considered on the basis of such papers.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 8.3.2014 relating to Crime No.381/2013 registered at Police Station Amiliya District Sidhi for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. Prosecutrix is shown to be 17 to 19 years of age in the Ossification Test. At present she is examined before the Trial Court and she had shown about her consent and she lived with the applicant for four months. Under such circumstances no offences is made out. Consequently, he prays for bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Bani Singh @ Jaiprakash may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5210/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 20.2.2014 relating to Crime No.105/2013 registered at Police Station Chargawan District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 341, 307 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He has no criminal past alleged against him. In the present case, the incident took place in a spur of movement and there was no pre planing. Sharp cutting weapon has been used for once but no fatal or grave injury was caused and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant. At the most the offence under Section 324 of IPC may be constituted which is not so grave. The remaining offences are bailable The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason. Under such circumstances, he prays for bail Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Prem Singh @ Baddu may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules. .
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C.No.4816/2014 19.5.2014 Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S. Datt for the applicant.
Shri P. C. Gupta, Learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 31.12.2013 relating to crime No.408/2013 registered at Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa for offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. There is no named FIR against the applicant. It is alleged against the applicant that he was identified in the test identification parade but it was arranged with delay. There is seizure of some cash but it could not be identified as the robbed property. The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. If the applicant is not enlarged on bail, his future will be spoiled in the company of harden criminals inside the jail. Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.
Learned G.A. for the State opposes the application. He submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may escape. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Abhishek may be accepted with some tough conditions. Consequently it is hereby allowed with some tough conditions.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra