Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Urf Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 May, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.3560/2015 (Arvind alias Kallu Vs. State of M.P.)
1
1.5.2015
Applicant by Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri R.S. Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.101/2014 registered at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind (M.P), for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 395 and 397 of IPC read with Sections 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and section 25/27 of Arms Act.
As per prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report that he had withdrawn Rs.6,50,000/- from State Bank of India, Lahar and when he was going to Daboh by his motorcycle on the way three unknown persons met him and snatched his bag along with his mobile phone and ran away from the spot.
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 28.1.2015 and trial is likely to take time. Learned counsel further submits that no TIP was conducted by the police and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence of committing loot against the applicant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that co-accused Gore @ Uday Pratap Singh has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.4.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.1653/2015 and the case of the applicant is akin to that M.Cr.C.No.3560/2015 (Arvind alias Kallu Vs. State of M.P.) 2 of co-accused Gore @ Uday Pratap Singh. In such premises, on the ground of parity the applicant prayed for bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. 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 applicant is in custody since 28.1.2015 and the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Gore @ Uday Pratap Singh who has been released on bail, 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 M.Cr.C.No.3560/2015 (Arvind alias Kallu Vs. State of M.P.) 3 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 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/-