Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalla @ Kalyan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2015
M.Cr.C. No. 1478/2015
02.03.2015
Shri Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the
applicant- Dileep Singh.
Shri Arun Barua, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a counter case is registered at crime No. 49/15. Therefore, for the just and proper adjudication of the bail application of the applicant, the case diary of the counter case be also called for.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to make available on the next date of hearing the case dairies of the Crime No. 49/15 and 50/15 of Police Station, Aaron.
List the case in the week commencing from 09.03.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/--
Criminal Appeal No. 109/2015 27.02.2015 Bablu & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Having perused the impugned judgment and petition of appeal, this appeal appears to be arguable. Hence, the same is admitted for final hearing.
Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of this admission. Hence, no further notice is required.
Heard on I.A. No. 1237/15, which is first application under Section 389 (i) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to them during the pendency of this appeal.
Vide impugned judgment dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Ambah, District Morena in Sessions Trial No. 374/2013 State of M.P. through police station, Nagra District Morena Vs. Babu and 3 others, the appellants stand convicted under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 and sentenced thereunder each of them to suffer RI for three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and RI for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation respectively. The jail sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of the appellants till 05.03.2015 and the appellants had already deposited the fine amount. The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally. Hence, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Panel Lawyer has no objection in allowing the I.A. On due consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties along with the fact that trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of the appellants, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants, therefore, the application is allowed. The execution of remaining jail sentence of the appellants is hereby suspended and it is ordered that they shall be released on bail subject to depositing the fine amount, if any, and furnishing 'each' a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- ( Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for their appearance before the Court of CJM Morena first time on 05.03.2015 and thereafter, on such dates, which shall not be less than the period of three months, as may be fixed by it in this regard, until further orders.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court of CJM, Morena for information and compliance.
Record of the trial Court be called for. List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1504/201527.02.2015 Rajkumar @ Pappu Vs. State of M.P. Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime No. 14/2015, registered at Police Station, Chirula District Datia against him for the offences punishable under Sections 212 and 216 of the IPC and 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 ( for short M.P. D.A.V.P.K. Act) and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Prosecutions allegations are that on 2.2.2015 the appellant was found in illegal possession of a country made firearm, a live cartridge, Rs. 175 and some articles which are used in daily life. According to the prosecution the applicant was to supply the seized articles to the dacoits of the area.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 02.02.2015. It is also submitted by him that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, on account of political rivalries. It is also submitted by him that the applicants is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Simra, Block Badagaon, Janpad Jhansi (U.P.). As such, he is a permanent resident of the aforesaid village. It is also submitted by him that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application on the ground that the applicant is a resident of U.P. State if he is released on bail, he may abscond. It is also submitted by him that if this Court deems it proper to grant him bail, then he be ordered to submit the local surety of the district Datia.
On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Raj Kumar @ Pappu be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one local solvent surety of district Datia, in same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C.No. 8219/201427.02.2015 Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant- Shiv Pratap Singh.
Ku. Nutun Saxena, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri Gagan Sharma, learned counsel for the Non-applicant No.2- Rakesh Saxena.
Parties are present in person and they are duly identified by their counsel. Their presence be marked.
The Principal Registrar, is requested to verify whether the parties have entered into the compromise voluntarily and without threats, coercion and inducement ?
He is also requested to submit his report by the after-noon.
Parties and their Advocates are directed to appear before the Principal Registrar.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C.No. 967/201527.02.2015 Shri D.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for the applicant- Avinash Tiwari.
Ku. Nutan Saxena, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri P.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Smt. Ritu Saluja.
The report of Jail Superintende nt, Central Jail, Gwalior is placed before this Court.
According to this report, applicant Avinash Tiwari has been released on bail.
Learned counsel for the parties prays for short time for the arguments.
Prayer is allowed.
List the case in the week commencing from 09.03.2015.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C.No. 7072/201027.02.2015 Shri V. Sumdaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/applicant.
Non-applicants are yet to be served. Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted one week's time for the payment of process fees and for supply of other requisites.
Notices be made returnable within four weeks.
The case be listed after four weeks.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C.No. 6225/201027.02.2015 None for the applicant.
Shri Vjay Sundaram , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Non-applicant No.3 to 6 are yet to be served.
Vide order dated 28.01. 2015, this Court had ordered the applicant to remove the default within a week, as pointed out by the Registry of this Court.
As per the report, default was not made good within the stipulated period.
None appeared on behalf of the applicant, despite repeated calls.
The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had filed in the year 2010. It appears that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost interest in the prosecution of the petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed for aforesaid reasons.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Crim in a l A ppea l No. 100 3/ 20 1027. 0 2. 2 01 5 S hri A nand G up ta, learned counsel f or the app licants.
S hri V jay Sund aram, learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
A pp ellant Prad eep and Suresh are present in p erson b ef ore this Court. T hey are d uly id entif ied b y their resp ectiv e counsel. T heir p resence b e mark ed .
Heard on I .A . N o. 1 29 2/15 , which is an app lication f or cond onation of non- app earance o f the af oresaid ap p ellants b ef ore the Reg istry of this Court on 0 9 .0 1 .20 15 .
T he reason s stated in the IA f or non- app earance are bonaf id e. Hence, the I.A., is allowed and non- app earance of the app ellants on 0 9 .0 1 .20 15 is hereb y cond oned .
Now, the ap p ellants shall ap p ear bef ore the Reg istry of this Court on 12 .05 .2 01 5 and thereaf ter on such other d ates as may be f ix ed by it, in this reg ard .
List the case f or f inal hearing in d ue course .
(Ra jen dra Ma h a ja n ) Judge dixit/-
Criminal Revision No. 1002/2010 27.02.2015 Shri P.K. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vjay Sundaram , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody in another case. He, therefore, prays for time to keep the appellant present before this Court and to file an application for condonation of his non- appearance on 16.02. 2015 before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List the case for the appearance of the appellant on 10.03.2015.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 978/201027.02.2015 Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vjay Sundaram , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for two weeks time to file an application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant No.2 Gandharv and to keep him present in person before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List the case on 16.03.2015.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 925/201027.02.2015 Shri Harish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vjay Sundaram , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Appellant No.4 Smt. Malti is present in person before this Court. She is duly identified by her counsel. Her presence be marked.
Heard on I.A. No. 1740/15, which is an application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on 8.07. 2014 before the Registry of this Court.
The reasons stated in the IA for non- appearance are bonafide. Hence, the I.A., is allowed and her non-appearance on 08.07. 2014 is hereby condoned.
Now, appellant Smt. Malti shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 11.05.2015 and thereafter on such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Crim in a l A ppea l No. 844 /2 01 0S onu @ A nil V s. S tate of M.P .
27. 0 2. 2 01 5 S hri S hishir Sax ena, learned counsel f or the app ellant.
S hri V jay Sund aram, learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
A pp ellant Sonu @ A nil present in p erson b ef ore this Court. He is d uly id entif ied by his counsel . His presence be mark ed .
Heard on I .A . N o. 1 74 4/15 , which is an app lication f or cond onation of non- app earance o f the ap p ellant on 1 9 .0 2 .20 15 b ef ore the Reg istry o f this Court.
T he reason s stated f or non- ap p earance in the I A , ap p ears to b e b onaf id e. Hence , the I .A ., is allowed and his non- ap pearance on 1 9 .0 2 .20 15 is hereb y cond oned .
Now, the ap p ellant shall app ear bef ore the Reg istry of this Court on 20 .04 .2 01 5 and thereaf ter on such other d ates as may be f ix ed by it in this reg ard .
List the case f or f inal hearing in d ue course .
(Ra jen dra Ma h a ja n ) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 2233/200927.02.2015 Shri R.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Shri Vjay Sundaram , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the parties prays for and is granted fixed date for final arguments.
List the case on 24.03.2015 for final arguments.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 112/201227.02.2015 Shri Ankur Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vjay Sundaram , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Appellants Omprakash and Mulchandra are present in person before this Court. They are duly identified by their counsel. Their presence be marked.
With the permission of this Court learned counsel for the appellants corrected the typographical error being occured in the I.A. No. 700/15.
Heard on I.A. No. 700/15, which is an application for condonation of non-appearance of appellants Omprakash and Mulchandra before the Registry of this Court on 15.01.2015. The reasons stated for non- appearance in the I.A., appears to be bonafide. Hence, their non-appearance on 15.01. 2015 before the Registry of this Court is hereby condoned.
Now, the appellants Omprakash and Mulchandra shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 06.05.2015 and thereafter on such other dates as may be fixed by it, in this regard.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No.1785/201527.02.2015 Shri Rajiv Budholia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vjay Sundaram , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available. It be made available positively on the next date of hearing.
List the case in the week commencing from 02.03.2015.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C.No. 870/201527.02.2015 Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ku. Nutan Saxena, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Dharmendra Singh Katiyar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Smt. Suvidha Verma.
Parties are present in person and they are duly identified by their counsel. Their presence be marked.
M. Cr. C. No. 17 22 /2 01 526. 0 2. 2 01 5 S hri A .K . N irank ari, A d v ocate f or the p etitioner.
S hri V ijay Sund aram, PL f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
Heard on ad mission.
A d mit.
Notice of ad missio n on b ehalf of resp ond ents is giv en to S hri V ijay S und aram learned Panel Lawy er, hence, notices are not req uired to b e serv ed up on the resp ond ents.
Learned Panel Lawy er is directed to sub mi t the rep ort withi n two week s as to what action has b een tak en b y Police Station I nd arg anj District G walior up on the FI R reg istered at Crime N o . 2 29 /2 01 4 und er S ection 45 2 , 3 23 and 5 06 of I PC.
Learned counsel f or the p etitioner is directed to sup p ly the copy of p etition along with other d ocument s to learned Panel Lawy er.
A ty ped cop y of this ord er be g iv en to learned Panel Lawy er.
Reg istry is d irected to list this case af ter receip t of rep ort.
(Ra jen dra Ma h a ja n ) Judge b j/-
Criminal Revision No. 854/2010 26.02.2015 Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant- Meharvan.
Ku. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
The service report regarding the execution of bailable warrant of arrest is awaited.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he undertakes to keep the applicant present in person before this Court on the next date of hearing for which fixed date may be given.
Prayer is allowed.
List the case for appearance of the applicant on 17.03.2015.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Crim in a l A ppea l No. 29/2 01 026. 0 2. 2 01 5 None ap p eared f or the ap pellant ev en in the second round , d esp ite rep eated calls.
S hri V . S und aram , learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
T he war rant of arrest issued ag ainst the app ellant Man S ing h is receiv ed un- serv ed with a note of the S .H.O . Police Station, K otwali District Datia.
A ccord ing to the note, the app ellant had not b een f ound , d esp ite p rop er ef f ort s.
I n v iew of the ab ov e, Reg istry is directed to issue p ermanent non- b ailab le warra nt of arrest to secure the p resence of the ap p ellant.
Reg istry is also directed to issue show cause notice to the surety of the app ellant as to why the surety bond cannot b e f orf eited and recov ered .
S how cause notice b e mad e returnab le within f our week s.
List the case af ter serv ice of notice up on the surety .
(Ra jen dra Ma h a ja n ) Judge dixit/-
Crim in a l A ppea l No. 378 /2 01 026. 0 2. 2 01 5 S hri Rajned ra S ing h f or the ap pellant- J itend ra Sharma .
S hri V . S und aram , learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
T he rep ort reg ard ing serv ice of arrest warra nt up on the app ellant and notice to surety is awaited .
Learned counsel Shri Rajend ra S ing h Y ad av app eared on behalf of S hri R.K . A wasthy , who is app earing on b ehalf of the ap pellant.
Learned counsel f or the app ellant und ertak es to k eep the ap p ellant to present b ef ore this Court on 1 0 .0 3 .20 15 .
(Ra jen dra Ma h a ja n ) Judge dixit/-
Crim in a l Revi sion No. 970 /2 00 726. 0 2. 2 01 5 S hri Dinesh Sav ita, learned counsel f or the app licant.
S hri V . S und aram , learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
A pp ellant I nd ar Sing h Y ad av is p rod uced in custod y f rom the S ub - jail Dab ra. He is d uly id entif ied by his counsel. His p resence be mark ed .
He be sent b ack with the same escort to the S ub- jail Dab ara f or serv ing out of the remaini ng jail sentence.
In v iew of the short jail sentence, the Reg istry is directed to list the case f or f inal hearing in the week commencing f rom 1 6 .0 3 .20 15 .
(Ra jen dra Ma h a ja n ) Judge dixit/-
Crim in a l A ppea l No. 318 /2 00 826. 0 2. 2 01 5 S hri F.A . S hah, learned counsel f or the app ellants.
S hri V . S und aram , learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
A pp ellant K aran Sing h and Ramb ab u are p rod uced b ef ore this Court in custod y b y police of p olice station, T eond a, District V id isha. In comp liance of the ex ecution of non- bailab le warra nt of arrest issued ag ainst them. T hey are d uly id entif ied by their counsel . T heir p resence be mark ed .
Heard on I .A . No. 1 69 5/15 , which is second app lication und er S ection 3 89 (I ) of the Cr.P .C . mov ed on behalf of the af oresaid ap pellants f or the susp ensio n of remaini ng jail sentence till the d isp osal of the app eal.
V id e ord er d ated 0 7 .0 5 .20 08 , this Court has susp end ed the jail sentence of the app ellants til l the disp osal of this ap peal, on the cond ition that they shall ap pear b ef ore the Reg istry on 0 1 .0 7 .20 08 and thereaf te r on such d ates as may b e f ix ed by it. Howev er , the app ellants d id not app ear b ef ore the Reg istry on 24 .03 .2 01 4 . On account of their non- app earance, this Court has ord ered to secure their p resence by issuing warra nt of arrest . I n the I .A ., the ap pellants hav e satisf actorily ex p lained their non- ap p earance on 2 4 .0 3 .20 14 , theref ore , the I .A . , is allowed . T he remaini ng jail sentence of the app ellants be susp end ed on f urni shing ' each' a personal b ond in the sum of Rs. 30, 0 00 /- (Rs. T hirt y Th ou sa n d on ly) with one solv ent surety in the lik e amount to the satisf action of the Chief J ud icial Mag istrate, V id isha. On being released on b ail, the app ellant shall app ear bef ore the Court of Chief J ud icial Mag istrate f irst time on 0 6 .0 4 .20 15 and thereaf ter , on such dates as may b e f ix ed by it in this reg ard , until f urther ord ers of this Court.
Notice to the surety K amod S ing h is receiv ed un- serv ed with a note that he had died on 0 1 .0 2 .20 15 .
I n view of the ab ov e, p roceed ing s ag ainst him are d ropp ed .
List the case f or f inal hearing in d ue course . A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha for compliance and information.
(Ra jen dra Ma h a ja n ) Judge dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 53/201226.02.2015 Shri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ku. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Today the case is listed for appearance of the appellant No.1.
Vide order dated 01.09.2014 of this Court, it is ordered that the presence of appellant No.1 Dharmendra @ Dhamma be secured by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest.
Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant No.1 Dharmendra @ Dhamma is received un-served with a report of the S.H.O. Police Station, Janakganj, Gwalior along with certain documents.
According to the report appellant Dharmendra @ Dhamma had died on 03.03.2013.
In view of the death of appellant Dharmendra @ Dhamma, this appeal in so far as it relates to appellant Dharmendra @ Dhamma stands abated.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to delete the name of appellant Dharmendra @ Dhamma from the cause title of the memo of appeal in the course of the day.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 885/201226.02.2015 Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for appellant.- Dr. Vishnu Agrawal.
None for respondent- Dr. Ram Soni. The arrest warrant issued against the respondent is received un-served with a note that he has gone to Agra for his treatment.
Heard on I.A. No. 1530/15, which is an application for withdrawal of the appeal moved on behalf of the appellant.
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for his prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrume nts Act, in the Court of Sanjay Agrawal, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 13680/08 Dr. Vishnu Agrawal Vs. Dr. Ram Soni. In this case, vide order dated 02.11. 2010, the learned trial Court discharged the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
In view of the above, the IA is allowed. The appellant is permitted to withdraw this appeal. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1570/2015Ramkrishan and another Vs. State of M.P. 25.02.2015 Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as they apprehend their arrest in Crime No. 01/2015 registered at Police Station, Deepnakheda District Vidisha against them and co-accused Balveer Singh for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.
Prosecution allegations are that deceased Malkhan Singh was an authorised electric lineman of village Deepnakheda. On the night of 11.11.2014, the applicants and co-accused forced him to restore the power supply before the scheduled load shedding. While re- establishing the power supply, he got electric shocks and burnt extensively. He succumbed to injuries.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no offence under Section 304 of the IPC is made out against the applicants, as the deceased is trained lineman and he should have taken due precaution and care before restoring the power supply. As such he died of his own negligence. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned panel lawyer opposes the prayer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, the applicants namely Ramkrishan and Halke be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer.
The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and to fully cooperate the investigating agency. He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 720/201525.02.2015 Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vijay Sunderam , learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he wants to argue the case after studying the charge sheet, which is not presently available with him.
The prayer is allowed.
List this case on 27.02.2015.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge RKS/-
M.Cr.C. No. 313/201525.02.2015 Shri S.B. Lodhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Appearing counsel for the applicant prays for time on the ground that his senior will argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List the the case after two weeks.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 372/201525.02.2015 Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant- Kalla @ Kalyan Singh.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not want to press the bail application by the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the bail application of applicant Kalla @ Kalyan Singh is dismissed as not pressed.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 369/2015Prem Singh Vs. State of M.P. 25.02.2015 Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime No. 34/2014, registered at Police Station, Unarsikala District Vidisha against him and co-accused Kalla @ Kalyan Singh and Sushila Bai for the offence punishable under Section 376 (D), 312 and 34 of the IPC and 5 r/w 6 the Protection o f Child ren f ro m S ex ual Of f ences A ct 2 01 2 and 3 (2 ) (5 ) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Prosecution allegations are that the applicant and co- accused Kalla @ Kalyan Singh had sexually exploited 16 years old prosecutrix, knowing that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, she became pregnant. Co-accused Sushila Bai gave her pills for abortion. Thereafter, she delivered a pre- matured baby, who died instantly.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 21.7.2014 and the charge sheet had been filed. It is also submitted by him that as per the D.N.A., report the applicant is not biological father of the pre- matured baby which confirms that the applicant had not sexually exploited the prosecutrix. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the D.N.A. report, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Prem Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 369/2015Prem Singh Vs. State of M.P. 25.02.2015 Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime No. 34/2014, registered at Police Station, Unarsikala District Vidisha against him and co-accused Kalla @ Kalyan Singh and Sushila Bai for the offence punishable under Section 376 (D), 312 and 34 of the IPC and 5 r/w 6 the Protection o f Child ren f rom S ex ual Of f ences (POCS O) A ct 2 01 2 and 3 (2) (5 ) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short 'the Act').
Prosecution allegations are that the applicant and co- accused Kalla @ Kalyan Singh sexually exploited near about 16 years old prosecutrix, knowing the fact that she belongs to Scheduled Tribes. As a result of sexually exploitation. The prosecutrix became pregnant, co-accused Sushila Bai gave her some pills, on account of which she delivered a pre- matured baby, who died instantly.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 21.7.2014 and the charge sheet had been filed. It is also submitted that as per the D.N.A., report the applicant is not biological father of the pre-matured baby which confirmed with the fact that the applicant had not sexually exploited the prosecutrix. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the D.N.A., report, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Prem Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 821/2015Smt. Sushila Bai Vs. State of M.P. 25.02.2015 Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime No. 34/2014, registered at Police Station, Unarsikala District Vidisha against her and co-accused Kalla @ Kalyan Singh and Prem Singh for the offence punishable under Section 376 (D), 312 and 34 of the IPC and 5 r/w 6 the Protection o f Child ren f ro m S ex ual Of f ences A ct 2 01 2 and 3 (2 ) (5 ) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Prosecution allegations are that co-accused Kalla @ Kalyan Singh and Prem Singh sexually exploited 16 years old tribal prosecutrix. Consequently, she became pregnant. The applicant gave her pills for abortion. She consumed the pills. Thereafter, she delivered a pre-matured baby, who died instantly.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 25.8.2014 and the charge sheet had been filed. It is also submitted by him that the applicant is a woman and she does not have any criminal records. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Sushila Bai be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for her appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 883/201525.02.2015 Shri Manish Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned counsel for the objector/complainant.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to prepare the arguments on bail application.
List the case in the week commencing from 02.03.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 462/201525.02.2015 Shri Anshu Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant- Halke Nut.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 548/201025.02.2015 None for the appellant.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Vide order dated 26.08.2010, this Court had ordered to secure the presence of the appellant by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest.
The arrest warrant is returned un-served with a report of the S.H.O., Police Station Bharoli district Bhind. According to the report, the applicant had been absconding for over three months.
In view of the report, let a fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant and to issue a show cause notice to his surety as to why the amount of surety bond be not forfeited and recovered for not keeping the appellant present before this Court.
List the case for appearance of the appellant on 28.04.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 1170/2014 25.02.2015 Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/appellant.
Report regarding service of bailable warrant upon the non-applicant/respondent is still awaited.
In view of the above, let a fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- be issued against the non- applicant/respondent Sujan Singh for securing his appearance, on a date to be fixed by the Registry of this Court.
List the case after appearance of the non- applicant/respondent.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 10273/201425.02.2015 Shri Arun Pateriya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ku. Nutan Saxena, learned Public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one week's time to argue the matter.
List the case in the week commencing from 02.03.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 11083/201425.02.2015 Shri Arun Pateriya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ku. Nutan Saxena, learned Public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one week's time to argue the matter.
List the case in the week commencing from 02.03.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 12376/2014Bablu Nat Vs. State of M.P. 25.02.2015 Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant-Bablu Nat.
Ku. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 1307/15, which is an application for taking documents on record moved on behalf of the applicant.
Considering the relevancy of the documents vis-a-vis the bail application, the IA is allowed and the documents annexed therewith are taken on record.
Also heard on bail application. Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime No. 191/2014, registered at Police Station, Nateran District Vidisha against him and co-accused Halke Nat for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 450, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution allegations are that on 14.08.2014 at about 4.00 p.m., the prosecutrix was all alone in her house breast feeding her son. At that time the applicant and co-accused Halke Nat, who are Chachiya Sasur in her relation (husband's uncle), entered her house. Thereafter, co-accused Halke Nat closed the door from inside and committed rape upon her, gagging her mouth. After the incident, when the prosecutrix cried out loud, the applicant hit her with a danda. As a result of which she sustained injuries in her left hand.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 29.08.2015 and the charge sheet had been filed. It is also submitted by him that wife of co-accused Halke Nat lodged an FIR against Gajendra Nat, who is Devar of the prosecutrix, for committing rape upon her on 03.05.2014 i.e. 3 months prior to the alleged incident. In retaliation, at the behest of Gajendra Nat, the prosecutrix had lodged the false report against the applicant and co-accused Halke Nat, who happens to be real brothers. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Bablu Nat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1360/2015Mahendra Singh Rathore Vs. State of M.P. 25.02.2015 Shri P.S. Bhadoriya, learned counsel for applicant-Bablu Nat.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Today the documents filed with a list are taken on record.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime No. 04/2015, registered at Police Station, Saraychhola, District Morena against him and co-accused Ramlakhan for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
Prosecution allegations are that on 01.02.2015 applicant and co-accused Ramlakhan were found transporting 216 bulk liters of factory made country liquor and foreign liquor worth Rs.5,34,640/- without permit.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 02.02.2015. It is also submitted by him that Kalpana wife of Ramswaroop Shivhare has taken the license from the Excise Department, Govt. of M.P., for selling factory made country liquor and foreign liquor for the financial year 2014-2015. Applicant Mahendra Singh is her employee. It is also submitted by him that the Excise office Morena had issued a transit pass dated 01.02.2015 i.e. date of the incident for carrying 345.6 bulk liters of factory made and foreign liquor from the warehouse to the shop. When the applicant and co-accused were taking the seized liquor to the shop during the time mentioned in the pass the police Saraychhola seized the liquor, despite having shown them the pass and license. It is also submitted by him that earlier police seized 22 cartoons of liquor owned by Kalpana Shivhare, which the police had to release upon the complaint made by her to higher authorities. In retaliation the police seized the liquor. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the transit pass, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Mahendra Singh Rathore be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 196/201524.02.2015 Shri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant- Maharaj Singh.
Shri V.K. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
Last opportunity is granted to make available the case diary. If the same is not made available on the next date of hearing, then the bail application will be considered on the basis of material available on record.
List the case on 02.03.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M. Cr. C. No. 40 6/ 20 15S hank ar V s. S tate of M.P.
24. 0 2. 2 01 5.
S hri S unil Soni, learned counsel f or the app licant- S hank ar.
S hri V .K . S und aram, learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
Heard arg uments .
Perused case diary and material on record . T his is f irst b ail ap p lication f iled b y the app licant und er S ection 43 8 of the Cr .P. C. as he app rehend s his arrest in connection with Crime N o. 83 /2 01 4 reg istered at Police Station Rag hog arh, District G una , ag ainst him f or the of f ences p unishab le und er S ections 41 9 and 4 20 of the I nd ian Penal Cod e.
Prosecution alleg ations are that in the S essions T rial N o. 70 /1 2 pend ing in the Court o f 3 r d A dd itional Sessions J ud g e, G una, the ap plicant sub mitted bail p ap ers to act as surety to accused K omal Pard i. T he Court sent the Rin- Pustik a f or v erif ication to the T ahsild ar G una, who in turn, f ound the Rin- Pushtik a f org ed af ter d ue inq uiry . Up on the rep ort of T ahsild ar, the af oresaid case is reg istered against the app licant.
Learned counsel f or the app licant sub mits that the ap plicant is an illiterate p erson and he owns a land bearing surv ey N o. 18 5/1/17 in v illag e Ballap ur f or which he has got the Rin Pushtik a. I n v iew of the ab ov e, the T ahsild ar has sub mitted a f alse rep ort. Up on these sub missio ns, p ray er is mad e f or grant of anticip atory b ail.
Learned Panel Lawy er op p oses the p ray er on the g round that in the Rin- Pushtik a, the af oresaid surv ey numb er is not mentioned .
Consid ering the f acts and circumstances o f the case, the sub mission s ad v anced on b ehalf of the p arties by their counsel, b ut without exp ressing any op inion on merits of the case, I am not inclined to g rant the b ail to the app licant. Hence, his b ail app lication is rejected .
(RA JE ND RA MA HA JA N ) JU D GE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1046/2015Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. 24.02.2015 Shri P.S. Raghuvans hi, learned counsel for the applicant- Balveer Singh.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 01/2015 registered at Police Station, Deepnakheda District Vidisha against him and co-accused Ramkrishan and Halke for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.
Prosecution allegations are that deceased Malkhan Singh was an authorised electric lineman of village Deepnakheda. On the night of 11.11.2014, the applicant and co-accused forced him to restore the power supply before the scheduled load shadding. While re- establishing the power supply, he got electric shocks and burnt extensively. He succumbed to injuries.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no offence under Section 304 of IPC is made out against the applicant, as the deceased is trained lineman and he should have taken due precaution and care before restoring the power supply. As such he died of his own negligence. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned panel lawyer opposes the Prayer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, the applicant Balveer Singh be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer.
The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and to fully cooperate the investigating agency. He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C.No. 1377/201524.02.2015 Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant- Lalu Kushwah.
Shri V.K. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
After arguing quite a while, learned counsel for the applicant prays for further time for submissions on arguments.
Prayer is allowed.
List the case on 26.02.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit M.Cr.C.No. 1377/2015 24.02.2015 Shri Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the applicant- Narayan Kushwaha.
Shri V.K. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Having argued for quite a while, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the bail application which is under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
The prayer is allowed.
The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit M. Cr. C. No. 14 00 /2 01 5 Deepak G up ta V s. State of M.P .
24. 0 2. 2 01 5.
S hri Rajiv S harma, learned counsel f or the app licant.
S hri V .K . S und aram, learned Panel Lawy er f or the resp ond ent/S tate.
Heard arg uments .
Perused case diary and material on record . T his is f irst b ail ap p lication f iled b y the app licant und er S ection 43 8 of the Cr .P. C. as he app rehend s his arrest in connection with Crime N o. 3 78 /2 01 4 reg istered at Police Station T y ond a, District V id isha ag ainst him and co- accused A shok J ain f or the of f ences p unishab le und er S ections 42 0 , 40 7 and r/w 34 of the I PC and S ection 3 r/w 7 of the Esse ntial Commod ities A ct.
Prosecution alleg ations are that co- accused A shok J ain is the Manag er of G ov t. f air p rice shop located at v illag e G hatera and the app licant is a salesma n of it. Up on the v erif ication of the stock of the shop , 92 21 Ltrs. K erosene, 19 .58 Quintal sug ar, 29 4 .9 2 Quintal, wheat , 5 9 .0 4 Quintal. , rice 5 9 .0 4 Quintal. and other f ood g rains worth ov er Rs . 2 ,1 7 ,49 4 /- are f ound missing .
Learned counsel f or the app licant sub mits that the ap plicant is a salesma n and co- accused A shok J ain is resp onsib le f or missi ng of the af oresaid commod ities f rom the shop . I t is also sub mitted by him that all the of f ences are triab le b y the J ud icial Mag istrate First Class. Up on these sub missio ns , p ray er is mad e f or g rant of anticip atory bail.
Learned Panel Lawy er op p oses the p ray er on the g round that the hug e quantity of essential commod ities is f ound missi ng .
Consid ering the f acts and circumstances o f the case, the sub mission s ad v anced on b ehalf of the p arties by their counsel, b ut without exp ressing any op inion on merits of the case, I am not inclined to g rant the b ail to the app licant. Hence, his b ail app lication is rejected .
(RA JE ND RA MA HA JA N ) JU D GE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1384/2015Ramesh Jat Vs. State of M.P. 24.02.2015 Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 01/2015 registered at Police Station, Nateran District Vidisha against him for the offence punishable under Section 457of the IPC.
Prosecution allegations are that in the night of 31.12.2014, the applicant made criminal trespass into the house of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the date of incident is 31.12.2014, whereas the complainant lodged the FIR on 02.01.2015. As such, there is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted by him the complainant's daughter Usha lodged the FIR against the applicant for the same incident which is registered at crime No. 4/14 for the offences under Sections 452, 354, 323 of the IPC and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Upon these submissions, the prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned panel lawyer opposes the Prayer. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, the applicant Ramesh Jat be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer.
The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and to fully cooperate the investigating agency. He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
Criminal Appeal No. 298/201423.02.2015 Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri V.K. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to keep the appellant present before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List the case for appearance of the appellant on 16.03.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1354/201523.02.2015 Shri M.M. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.K. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time for submission of the documents in support of the bail application.
List the case in the week commencing from 09.03.2015.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1450/201523.02.2015 Shri R.K. Uadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant-Pradeep.
Shri V.K. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Registry is directed to verify whether the bail application is entertainable by Single bench or Division bench.
After the verification, list the case before the appropriate Bench.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No.1511/2015Santosh and others Vs. State of M.P. 23.02.2015 Shri R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as they apprehend their arrest in Crime No. 13/2015 registered at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha against them for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323, 294, 506 r/w 34, later added Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution allegations are that on 14.01.2015 in village Dedori, on account of election disputes the applicants committed mar-peet with complainant Mohan and Ramesh, Ramraj, Yashpal, Banti, Harpal and Raj Kumar with sticks, legs and fists.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays that the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, has granted bail to the applicants, but later the police added the offence under Section 326 of the IPC as per X-ray report of complainant Mohan he got fracture in his head. Under the circumstances, it is their apprehension that if they appear before the concerned Court, they may be taken into custody. It is also submitted by him that as per the opinion of the treating doctor the injury is not dangerous to the life of the complainant. Upon these submissions, the prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned panel lawyer opposes the prayer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a good case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is ordered that if the concerned Court takes the applicants into custody in view of the added offence under Section 326 of the IPC, they be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
The applicants are directed to appear before the concerned Court before or on 09.03.2015. This order shall stand vacated automatically if they do not appear on the stipulated time.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No.1518/2015Ramraj Dangi Vs. State of M.P. 23.02.2015 Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
On perusal of the impugned order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Vidisha in bail application No. 33/2015 Ramraj Dangi and others Vs. State of MP through police station, Gulabganj, District Vidisha, the applicants have been facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 327 r/w 34, 427, 325 r/w 34 506 and 329 of the IPC and 146 r/w 196 and 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, in criminal case No. 3166/2014, which is pending in the Court of Mukesh Ravat, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha. On the date of hearing the applicants were not present in the trial Court and their application under Section 317 had been rejected by the trial Court. And it ordered to issue warrant of arrest against them.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are directed to appear before the trial Court not later than 9 t h March, 2015. The trial Court is ordered that if the applicants are taken into custody by it, they be released on fresh bail. The amount of bail bonds shall be decided by it.
This order shall stand vacated automatically, if the applicants do not appear before the trial Court, as compliance of this order before or on 09.03.2015.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1043/2015Banti Vs. State of M.P. 23.02.2015 Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant- Banti @ Gangaram.
Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime No. 08/2015, registered at Police Station, Sabalgarh District Morena against him and co-accused namely Babloo, Yashoda and Bhagwan Singh for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution allegations are that the applicant and co- accused persons committed theft of 333 bricks of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 07.01.2015 and the charge sheet had been filed. It is also submitted by him that the concerned JMFC, Court had granted bail to co-accused Babloo, Yashoda and Bhagwan Singh. The trial Court and the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena rejected the bail application of the applicant on the ground that the stolen bricks were taken into the tractor owned by the applicant. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Banti @ Gangaram be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1300/201523.02.2015 Shri Suresh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant- Bharat Gurjar.
Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime No. 1149/2014, registered at Police Station, Kotwali District Shivpuri against him and co-accused namely Ramveer, Baijnath, Mahendra and Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 506-II and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution allegations are that on 27.07.2014, the prosecutrix was forcibly kidnapped by the applicant and co- accused persons and she was taken to Indore in a jeep where the prosecutrix was forcibly married to co-accused Ramveer. Thereafter, he had sexually exploited the prosecutrix till 18.10.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 21.01.2015. It is also submitted by him that the prosecutrix had voluntarily married the co- accused Ramveer. This fact was recognized by Hon'ble the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 5094/14 Ramveer and Others Vs. State of M.P. It is also submitted by him that in the Writ Petition vide order dated 02.09.2014, the High Court has been directed the police not to harass the proseuctrix and co-accused Ramveer. It is also submitted by him that applicant Bharat Gurjar is the father of co-accused Ramveer. It is also submitted by him that his role is that he had accompanied the prosecutrix and co-accused Ramveer from the place of occurrence to Indore and he was present at the time of marriage of the prosecutrix with co-accused Ramveer. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Bharat Gurjar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1302/2015Sanjay Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. 23.02.2015 Shri D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant- Sanjay Chaturvedi.
Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime No. 80/2015, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District Shivpuri against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution allegations are that Tahsildar Shivpuri had granted permission to the applicant for diversion of 5000/- sq. feet land. But he sold 6000 sq. feet land as duly diverted to the buyer. Thus, he sold 1000 sq. feet undiverted land as diverted land.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 03.02.2015. It is also submitted by him that no custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. It is also submitted by him that Tehsildar has no locus standi to lodge the FIR as he is not aggrieved person. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Sanjay Chaturvedi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 1331/201523.02.2015 Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the applicant- Teeran Singh.
Shri V.K. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime No. 07/2015, registered at Police Station, Kararia Chauraha, District Vidisha against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution allegations are that the applicant had sexually exploited the prosecutrix since 2010 till her marriage on the year 2014. On 29.12.2014, the prosecutrix visited her parents house, at that time the applicant committed rape with her and threatened her to defame.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 15.01.2015 and the charge sheet had been filed. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In her statement, the prosecutrix denies the fact that the applicant had committed rape upon her on 29.12.2014 and she states that she lodged the FIR against the applicant out of the rage at the instigation of one Dropadi. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that applicant Teeran Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance on all the dates as may be fixed by it in this regard. In case of bail jump, the concerned Court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-
M.Cr.C. No. 3811/201126.11.2014 Shri V.K. Rishi, learned counsel for the applicant Smt. Rehana Khan.
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Ku. Ruksana Begum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 6.
Applicant Smt. Rehana Khan and non-applicant No.2 Mohd. Sohail Asharfi @ Sohail Khan are present in person. They are identified by their respective counsel.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. She has averred in her petition that Non- applicant No.2 Mohd. Sohail is her husband, Non- applicant No.3 Noor Jehan is her Mother-in-law, Non- applicant No.4 is her sister-in-law (Nanand), Non- applicant No.5 Mehfooz Ahmed and non-applicant No.6 Babboo @ Mohd. Ahmed are her Devors (husband's brothers). On account of matrimonial disputes, she lodged the FIR against them for committing cruelties upon her and demanding dowry at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur. Upon her report, the police registered the Crime No. 8/04 against non-applicant No.2 to 6 under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against them. The charge sheet was registered at Criminal Case No. 10925/07 State of M.P. through Police Station Mahila Thana, Jabalpur Vs. Mohd. Sohail and others. At the time of filing the petition, the case was pending in the Court of Shri Nitin Kumar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. During the pendency of the case, all the disputes between her and non-applicant No.2 to 6 had been amicably settled and she has been living happy marital life with her husband non-applicant No.2. Not only that, on the encouragement of her husband, she has been pursuing further studies and the non-applicant No. 3 to 6 have been taking care of her very well. Under the circumstances, she prays for the quashment of the proceedings of the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Upon the oral order dated 17.09.2014 of this Court, Registrar Judicial-I of the Registry had examined and verified the voluntariness of the parties. According to his report of the same date, the applicants and non- applicant No.2 have compromised voluntarily and without any undue influence or pressure.
Today this Court has made an shot inquiry. The applicant states that she has been leading happy marital life with her husband. She is being taken care of by the non-applicant No.3 to 6. The non-applicant No.2 has assured this Court that in future he will also keep the applicants happy and fulfill her wishes.
The learned counsel for the non-applicant/State submits that since it is the case of re-union of husband and wife and their families, he has no objection in allowing the petition.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, statements made by the applicants and non- applicant No.2 before this Court and the law laid down in the matters of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others 2012 ( Cr.L.J.) S.C. 4934, Bhavuki Sharma & Others Vs. Anju Sharma & Others 2010 (1) MPHT 499, (2008) 9 SCC, 677, (2005) 3 SCC 302, (2005) 3 SCC 299, 2009 (77) All India Cases 610 (M.P.), 2005 (2) MPLJ (2003) 4 SCC 675 with regard to the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this petition is allowed in the interest of justice.
The proceedings of Criminal case No. 10925/07 State of M.P. through Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur Vs. Mohd. Sohil and others are hereby quashed. The non-applicant No. 2 to 5 are acquitted of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with which they have been charged. Their bail and bail bonds stand cancelled.
A copy of this order be sent to the above Court for .
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules.
( Rajendra Mahajan) Judge dixit/-