Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.2024/2015 (Sunil Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.)
7.5.2015
Applicant by Shri Ankur Maheshwari, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, Panel
Lawyer.
This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.170/2010 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena (M.P), for the offences punishable under Section 363, 365 of IPC and sections 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.
As per prosecution case, on 20.3.2010 the complainant has lodged a missing report of her son. After registration of the missing report, the police has conducted the investigation and the statement of complainant was recorded. One Narendar Singh Tomar told the complainant that he has seen his son with Rahul and Sunil Gurjar (applicant) on a Scooter. Thereafter the case was registered against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. The applicant is in custody since 24.1.2015 and trial is likely to take time. Learned counsel further submits that co- accused Rahul has been acquitted vide judgment dated 2.11.2010 by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.35/2010. In such premises, the applicant prayed for bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. M.Cr.C.No.2024/2015 (Sunil Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and also looking to the fact that co-accused Rahul has been acquitted vide judgment dated 2.11.2010 by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.35/2010 l and applicant is in custody since 24.1.2015, but without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the M.Cr.C.No.2024/2015 (Sunil Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.) offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar Gupta ) Judge pawar/-