Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shabbir Khan vs State Of M.P on 16 April, 2015
1
M.Cr.C. No.1951/2014
16/04/2015
Shri Arsahd Ali, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri BPS Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has challenged the registration of Crime No.774/2011 registered at Police Station Dabra District Gwalior for Commission of offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 34 of IPC.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has mainly two objections. Firstly, that on the given date he was on duty and he has filed a duty certificate dated 6.1.2012 (Annexure P-6), and therefore he could not commit the crime. Secondly, there are so many cases lodged by him, because his sister was kidnapped by the culprits, who lodged a false FIR, and therefore false case has been lodged against the applicants.
So far as the certificate dated 6.1.2012 is concerned, it indicates that initially the applicant was on duty on 28.10.2011 on a train, but he 2 intimated his officers that there is an intimation that a theft has been caused in his house, and therefore he was permitted to go to his house directly from his duty place. Looking to the certificate, it would be apparent that the applicant did not appear before his controlling officer in person and applied for leave. The possibility cannot be ruled out that he left the train on 28.10.2011 itself. According to the FIR, the incident took place in between 29.10.2011 and 1.11.2011, and therefore by the certificate issued by the Incharge Inspector, it cannot be said that the applicant did not participate in the crime as alleged against him. It would be proper for the applicant to prove that document before the trial Court at the time of defence evidence. For consideration of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. a document can be considered if it is proved to be a beyond doubt document. The present document does not disclose the actual position as and when the applicant left the train and went to his house, and therefore such document cannot be relied upon in the present case at this stage.
So far as the crime committed against the sister of the applicant is concerned, The enmity is a double 3 edged weapon, that means due to enmity a false case can be lodged and due to enmity a crime can be committed with the enemy. Under such circumstances, where the testimony of the complainant of this case cannot be brushed aside at this stage on the basis of enmity. The FIR was lodged in the year 2011 and the applicant has come under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2014, the delay in filing the present petition indicates that the conduct of the applicant is not bonafide.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is not a fit case in which inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be invoked. Hence, the present petition filed by the applicant namely Shabbir Khan cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court of information.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 4 M.Cr.C. No.8947/2014 16/04/2015 Shri D. Rishishwar, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission.
It would be proper to call the records of the Courts below before considering the aforesaid question.
Office is directed to call the records of the Courts below and the same be placed before this Court on next date of hearing.
Case be listed under the same head in the week commencing from 15.6.2015.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 5 M.Cr.C. No.1826/2014 16/04/2015 Shri Ravi Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri BPS Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No1-State.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant to file the copy of the judgment of the court below and the certified copy of the decree passed in favour of the respondent No.2, the case is adjourned.
It be listed under the same head in the week commencing from 5.5.2015.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 6 M.Cr.C. No.2367/2011 16/04/2015 Shri D. Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri BPS Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant to file the copy of entire charge sheet, the case is adjourned.
It be listed under the same head in the week commencing from 5.5.2015.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 7 M.Cr.C. No.1927/2014 16.04.2015 Shri Brijesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri BPS Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with liberty to raise all such objections before the trial Court as well as revisionary court from time to time.
Prayer is allowed.
The instant petition filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed being withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 8 M.Cr.C. No.3058/2013 16/04/2015 Shri Prashun Maheshwari, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri FA Shah, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is repeat bail application on behalf of the present applicant. His earlier application was dismissed on merits on 3.9.2014.
The applicant is in custody since 30.9.2013 in connection with Crime No.203/2013 registered at Police Station Chanderi District Ashoknagar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
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. The prosecutrix was shown to be 16 years of age initially, but in the ossification test she was found to be 16 to 18 years of age, and in such computation two years may be added on both the sides. Looking to her physical appearance, she appears to be above 18 years of age. At present the prosecutrix (PW-1) has been 9 examined before the trial Court and she has accepted that on 16.6.2013 she contacted her brother with the help of mobile phone of the applicant and informed him that she was coming back on the next day. Thereafter it is alleged that the accused dropped her at the railway station Lalitpur. The applicant informed the brother of the prosecutrix that she was boarded in the bus and she be received from Rajghat dam and thereafter she went back to her father's house at Chanderi. Looking to the overt-act of the prosecutrix, it appears that she was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against the applicant. Under these changed 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 as well as change circumstances, 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 Rekwar may be accepted. Consequently it is hereby allowed.
10It 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) Judge Ansari 11 M.Cr.C. No.2102/2015 16.04.2015 Shri G.M.Soni, counsel for the applicants. Shri FA Shah, P.L. for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants are in custody since 8.2.2015 relating to Crime No.1/2015 registered at Police Station Bhawanpur, Lashkar District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Preveention of Atrocities) Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them. The prosecutrix is shown to be 30 years old married woman, who had alleged about the gang rape committed by the applicants. However, no corroboration was found in her medical report. No external or internal injury was found on her person. The FIR has been lodged with a delay of at least ten hours. It would be apparent that the applicants are falsely implicated in the matter. No alleged offence is made out against the applicants. They are in custody without any substantial reason. Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.
12Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and 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 may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the applicant Vijay Singh and Manoj be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of CJM Gwalior to appear before the committal court and 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) JUDGE Ansari 13 M.Cr.C. No.3015/2015 16.04.2015 Shri Sunil Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri FA Shah, P.L. for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 13.3.2015 relating to Crime No.124/2015 registered at Police Station Thatipur, Gwalior for the offences punishable under Section 195(A)/ 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old person of 60 years of age, who has no criminal past as such. In last five years 3-4 minor cases were registered against the applicant and he was not convicted in any of them. The applicant was not the accused in the case so that he was required to give any threat to the witness. Due to his criminal past, he is falsely implicated in the matter. The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason. Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the 14 case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the applicant Prakash be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of CJM Gwalior, to appear before the trial Court and the committal 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.
It is made clear that the applicant shall not true to meet the complainant of the present case and his relatives otherwise if it is noticed that he has violated such a condition, then present order shall stand dismissed automatically.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Ansari 15 M.Cr.C. No.3056/2015 16.04.2015 Shri Anshu Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Shri FA Shah, P.L. for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 24.1.2015 relating to Crime No.26/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sheopur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 27 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. It is alleged against the applicant that he called the deceased and thereafter his dead body was found. However, the doctor could not opined about the cause of death of the deceased. Some simple injuries were found on his person, but those injuries were not the cause of death. No offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant. At the most offence under Section 323 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable. The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason. Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.
16Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and 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 may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the applicant Girraj Sharma be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of CJM Sheopur, to appear before the trial Court and the committal 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) JUDGE Ansari 17 M.Cr.C. No.3086/2015 16.04.2015 Shri RVS Ghuraiya, counsel for the applicant. Shri FA Shah, P.L. for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 8.3.2015 relating to Crime No.47/2008 registered at Police Station Ghatigaon District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 120-B, 411, 342 of IPC and Sections 11/13 of MPDAVPK Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. There is no named FIR against the applicant. No test identification parade has been arranged against the applicant and no robbed property has been recovered from the applicant. There is no evidence against the applicant. He is arrested on the basis of memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the co-accused, which is not admissible. The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason. Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and 18 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 may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the applicant Gote Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of Special Court to appear before the Special 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) JUDGE Ansari 19 M.Cr.C. No.3090/2015 16/04/2015 Shri BS Gaur, Advocate for the applicants. Shri FA Shah, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants are in custody since 25/3/2015 in connection with Crime No.24/2015 registered at Police Station Matabasiya, Morena for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are youths of 25 and 26 years of age respectively, who have no criminal past alleged against them. The case in hand is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and therefore it is not so grave. The presence of the applicants is no more required during the investigation. Sufficient time will be required for its conclusion. The applicants cannot be kept in jail for an unlimited period otherwise their future will be spoiled in the company of harden criminals inside the jail. Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State informs that 54 bulk litres of liquor was found in their4 joint possession.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and 20 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 viz. Rinku @ Ramraj and Brajesh 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) each 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) Judge Ansari 21 M.Cr.C. No.3801/2015 16.04.2015 Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri FA Shah, Panel Lawyer Advocate for the respondent/State.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
The application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari