Mubarik Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mubarik Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2022

Bench: Sunita Yadav

                                      1
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT GWALIOR
                                    BEFORE
                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                              ON THE 7th OF JULY, 2022

                  MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30633 of 2022

           Between:-
           MUBARIK KHAN S/O IMRAN KHAN , AGED
           ABOUT 22 YEARS, GRAM UTABAL PALWAL
           HARIYANA (HARYANA)

                                                                   .....PETITIONER
           (BY SHRI RAVI DWIVEDI- ADVOCATE )

           AND

           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
           POLICE STATION MAHARAJPURA GWALIOR
           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
           (BY SHRI RAMADHAR CHOWBEY- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR )

         This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                       ORDER

The applicant has filed this First application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior in connection with crime No. 139/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 380, 427 of IPC.

As per prosecution story, short facts of the case are that the appellant had stolen money from three ATM machines with the help of co-accused persons. On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is an innocent person 2 and has been falsely implicated. He further argued that applicant is the only earning member of his family. He further argued that case against the applicant /accused has been registered for the offence punishable under section 380, 427 of IPC and the said offences are punishable for less than seven years of imprisonment. He further argued that investigation has not been completed till now, whereas, as per the provisions of section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. investigation ought to be completed within 60 days. He further argued that the applicant has been arrayed as accused in the present case only on the basis of memorandum under section 27 of Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary value. The applicant is permanent resident of District Palwal (Haryana). Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal 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/her;

2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself 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 any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.

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.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Durgekar SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH NAMDEOR COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022ffc2776 AO 08ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae8448e58, pseudonym=DA26B82C5BC4CAF69072CA5A 13CA996C4169AB06, serialNumber=1190D1488DBA862FB108ED6 DURGEKAR 6262DC2DC2CB9D310D73128B3A6E7B046F CF28227, cn=SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Date: 2022.07.07 18:21:04 -07'00'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court