Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Sonkar vs Smt. Sweta Sonkar on 20 January, 2016
1
M.Cr.C.No.5677/2014
20/1/2016
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant
petitioner had moved an application against the
respondent for offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. However, by the
impugned order dated 26/9/2013 the complaint was
dismissed and the respondent accused has been
acquitted from the offence for want of appearance.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner could not appear before lower Court due to
grievous illness and the complaint was dismissed.
Notices in the present case are issued to the respondent
through Newspaper publication and the publication
has now been made and taken on record. There is a
remand certificate on respondent. Counsel prays that
the petition be taken up for hearing and the matter be
2
remanded to the trial Court.
Considering the above submissions and the
impugned order, I find that fresh decision be made in
the matter to do substantial justice between the parties.
Notices were issued to the respondent through
Newspaper publication, but none appears on behalf of
the respondent today.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The
Trial Court is directed to issue notices to the
respondent on remand.
...................
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 3 M.Cr.C.No.7716/2015 20/1/2016 Shri Sitaram Madrosiya, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is an allegation against the appointment of the applicant and there is also allegation against the applicant of getting forged caste certificate.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to file a copy of the appointment letter since it is essential on the part of the University for enabling to decide the matter. He is also directed to make Vikram University as a party respondent through the Competent Authority within a week. Subject to compliance, issued notices to the newly added respondent on payment of process within a week thereafter. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
4List after service of notices on the newly added respondent, preferably in the week commencing 15/2/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 5 Cr.R.No.9992/2015 20/1/2016 Shri Navneet Kishore, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Joshi, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri Manish Manana, learned Counsel for the respondent, prays for a short time.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.
List after a week on any Wednesday, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 6 Cr.R.No.6/2016 20/1/2016 Ms. Kiran Johar, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Ms. Hemlata Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, prays for a short time.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 7 Cri.A.No.20/2016 20/1/2016 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Call for the record.
List after receipt of the record along with Cri. A. No.1806/2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 8 M.C.C.No.520/2015 20/1/2016 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent though duly served. Last opportunity is granted to the respondent. List after two weeks.
Interim relief granted earlier shall continue. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 9 W.P.No.8857/2015 20/1/2016 Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner.
The petition is listed today on mention slip. However, the petition is listed on the point of defect.
Counsel submits that he cured the defect, as pointed out by the Registry.
List tomorrow i.e. on 21/1/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 10 M.C.C.No.751/2015 20/1/2016 Shri Kaushal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner Smt. Arpita Sohani along with child is present in person.
Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Respondent Sachin Sohani is also present in person.
After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that one chance should be given to both the parties to reconcile the matter. Both the parties have agreed to go for the mediation today at 2.30 p.m. in the High Court Mediation Centre. Smt. Rashmi Pandit is appointed as Mediator on behalf of the Legal Services Authority and her fees shall be regulated accordingly. In the meanwhile, she is directed to file a written report within two weeks. She is directed to 11 attempt reconciliation is possible, if not to work out the terms of settlement on mutual divorce, if possible.
A copy of this order be sent to Mrs. Rashmi Pandit.
Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 12 Cr.R.No.1397/2014 20/1/2016 Shri Sandeep Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to this Court that the petitioner husband has not paid any farthing towards the maintenance.
In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to deposit half of the maintenance as awarded by the lower Court within a period of four weeks from today.
Subject to compliance, list after four weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 13 Cr.R.No. 1405/2014 20/1/2016 List along with Cr.R. No.1397/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No. 9596/2014 20/1/2016 Shri Sachin Tenguriya, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to the fact that the leave cannot be granted since the 14 signature on the cheque is not matched.
Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time. List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No. 265/2015 20/1/2016 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sachin Tenguriya, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Both the Counsel have submitted that the matter has been compromised and the matter be listed before the Lok Adalat.
15In view of the above, list the petition before the ensuing Lok Adalat, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.Nos. 350/2015 and 445/2015 20/1/2016 Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner husband.
Ms. Firdose Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent wife.
Both the Counsel pray for a fixed date since the matter has been compromised out of the Court.
List on 27/1/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 16 Cr.R.No.645/2015 20/1/2016 Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Both the Counsel pray for a short time. List after a week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1260/2015 20/1/2016 17 Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner husband.
Shri Harshad Wadnerkar, learned Counsel for the respondent wife.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the petition along with the Annexures to the Counsel for the respondent within a week.
List along with Cr.R.No.978/2015 on 3/2/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.978/2015 20/1/2016 18 Shri Harshad Wadnerkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner wife.
Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent husband.
List along with Cr.R.No.1260/2015 on 3/2/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1121/2015 20/1/2016 19 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Service report is awaited. Registry is directed to produce the service report positively within the next week.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.10107/2015 18/1/2016 20 Shri M.S. Chandel, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.,applicant Manoj s/o Narayan Chouhan has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.136/2013 registered by police station Jeeran, District Neemuch for offence under Sections 8/15, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and although this is the second application moved on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail co-accused Sandeep Rawat, Madanlal, Presukh and Budhiya have been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.Nos. 853/15, 2065/15, 1197/15 and 2780/2015 respectively and the present application be allowed at least temporarily since daughter of the present 21 applicant is to be married on 26/1/2016.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that upon verification it is found that the marriage of the applicant is to take place. However, he submitted that more than commercial quantity of 36 quintal 74 kg 900 gm. is being transported and having recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
Considering the above submissions, I find that the age of the applicant is 30 years according to the cause title; whereas in the arrest memo he was only 25 years of the age. Under these circumstances, the daughter of the applicant cannot possibly be of a marriageable age and the applicant was unable to answer the query and dispel the suspicion satisfactorily. In this light, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed as being based on in correct fact. C.c. as per rules.
22(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11702/2015 19/1/2016 Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel for the 23 applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.,applicant Basantilal s/o Bherusingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.25/2015 registered by police station Moman Barodiya, District Shajapur for offence under Sections 394 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that the co-accused Manish has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.2501/2015 under same set of circumstances and on the grounds of parity alone the applicant is entitled to grant of bail. Counsel submitted that although the applicant was identified in the Test Identification Parade he has resiled from the said stand. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that only one mobile and Rs.2000/- has been recovered from the present 24 applicant. Hence, on the grounds of parity Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 24/1/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that one single criminal case listed against the present applicant and the recovery has been made from him. Hence, Counsel submitted that the applicant did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the application.
At this juncture, Counsel submitted that the applicant has been acquitted from the other case registered against him and on the grounds of parity, he prayed for grant of bail.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and looking to the young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the 25 interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of 26 the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.8105/2015 19/1/2016 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the 27 applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Devkaran s/o Cheerushingh Gurjar has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.25/2015 registered by police station Moman Barodiya, District Shajapur for offence under Sections 394 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that the co-accused Manish has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.2501/2015 under same set of circumstances and on the grounds of parity alone the applicant is entitled to grant of bail. Counsel submitted that although the applicant was identified in the Test Identification Parade he has resiled from the said stand. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that only one mobile and Rs.2000/- has been recovered from the present applicant. Hence, on the 28 grounds of parity Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 24/1/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the recovery has been made from the present applicant. Hence, Counsel submitted that the applicant did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and looking to the young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
29It is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.7503/2015 19/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
30Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time to produce the case diary and verify the criminal antecedence of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.
Investigating Officer shall also remain present on the next occasion along with the record.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.7289/2015 19/1/2016 Shri N.A. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
31Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not press this application.
The M.Cr.C. is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11355/2015 19/1/2016 Shri Manish Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
32Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Ajit Chhabra, learned Counsel for the objector. He prays for a short time.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the objector.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.441/2004 18/1/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for 33 the respondent/State.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant No.2 Anil Pande for his appearance before this Court on 16/2/2016. Notices be also issued to the Surety to show case as to why the amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 16/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.236/1999 18/1/2016 Shri Saumil Ekadi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
34Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrants have not been served. In view of the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant for his appearance before this Court on 16/2/2016. Notices be also issued to the Surety to show case as to why the amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 16/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.1084/2009 18/1/2016 Shri A. Siddqui, learned Counsel for the 35 appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.3354/2015, which is an application for deleting the name of appellant No.1 Radheshyam since he has died on 25.3.2015.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the I.A.is allowed. The appeal on behalf of the appellant No.1 shall stand abated. Counsel for the appellant is directed to delete the name of the appellant No.1 from the cause title of the appeal memo within a week.
Subject to compliance, list for final hearing in due course.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.1467/2009 18/1/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for 36 the respondent/State.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant Akil Pathan for his appearance before this Court on 16/2/2016. Notices be also issued to the Surety to show cause as to why the amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 16/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.525/2012 18/1/2016 Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
37Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant prays for time. He submits that the appellant is in jail for another offence.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant. Production warrant shall be issued on the next occasion.
List on 28/1/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 38 Cr.R.No.1068/2014 18/1/2016 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Navneet Kishore, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for time. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is the sole guardian of the petitioner No.2 minor son and the respondent is willing to take over the custody of the child.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to move appropriate application.
List after two weeks, as prayed. No further adjournment shall be granted.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 39 Cri.A.No.835/2012 18/1/2016 Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he is unable to keep the appellant No.2 Ramchandra present before this Court since the appellant has been hospitalized. And also heard on I.A.No.275/2016, which is application for condonation of absence of the appellant No.2 on 10/12/2015 and also exemption from his presence before the Registry.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to verify the same.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 40 Cr.R.No.1076/2012 18/1/2016 Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is unable to keep the petitioner present before this Court.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against petitioner Rambabu for his appearance before this Court on 16/2/2016. Notices be also issued to the Surety to show case as to why the amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 16/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 41 Cr.R.No.266/2013 18/1/2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against petitioner No.3 Asif @ Ashique for his appearance before this Court on 16/2/2016. Notices be also issued to the Surety to show case as to why the amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 16/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 42 Cri.A.No. 1312/2013 18/1/2016 Shri Akhilesh Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Sachin Tenguria, learned Counsel for the Surety.
Heard on I.A. No.9211/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence regarding the appellant.
Appellant Sikandar Patel is present in person. He submits that he was in jail for another offence and hence he could not appear before this Court on the date fixed by the Registry and prays that the absence be condoned. Appellant undertakes to remain present before this Court/Registry.
Considering the above fact that the appellant has now been enlarged in another matter the application is 43 allowed and the absence is hereby condoned.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence today and he is also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 16/2/2016 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 44 Cr.R.Nos. 1344/13, 1345/13 and 1350/2013 18/1/2016 Ku. Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for a short time to file reply to the I.As.
By was of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 45 Cr.R.No.1037/2014 18/1/2016 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for a short time to keep the petitioner No.2 Lakhan present before this Court. He submits that the mother of the petitioner No.2 has died and hence he could not mark his presence before this Court on the date fixed by the Registry.
By was of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to keep the petitioner No.2 present before this Court.
List on 2/2/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 46 Cr.A.No.1431/2014 18/1/2016 Shri Amit Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for a short time to verify the medical status of the appellant No.2.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 47 Cr.A.No.711/2015 18/1/2016 Shri Hemant Purohit, learned Counsel appears of behalf of the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he was unable to pay the process within the time and now the process has been paid.
In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest for Rs.20,000/- against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 for their appearance before this Court on 16/2/2016.
List on 16/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 48 Cr.A.No.1638/2015 14/1/2016 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission. Admit.
Call for the record.
Heard on I.A.No.8869/2015, which is an application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant Kalu.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that a short sentence of three years R.I. Has been imposed for offence under Section 392/34 of the IPC and the appellant has fully chance of success in the appeal, which is likely to take a long time. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of suspension of jail sentence.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the 49 Counsel for the appellant. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to his having paid the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 10thof February, 2016 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.
List on 8/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
50
M.Cr.C.No.9661/2015
14/1/2016
Shri Siddhardh Jain, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this sixth application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Akram Khan has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.285/2014 registered by police station Manawar, District Dhar for offence under Section 376-G of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that although this is the sixth application on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail, the prosecutrix, who is a major, has now been examined in Court and the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter by the prosecutrix on the basis of prompting her father-in-law, who had an axe to 51 grind the present applicant and the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrest on 14.5.2014 and the trial is likely to take a long time.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the the prosecutrix has not been declared to be hostile in Court and the applicant fully implicated in the matter in her cross-examination in chief. Hence,Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 52 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
53
M.Cr.C.No.10593/2015
14/1/2016
Shri Soumil Ekadi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there are two criminal cases registered against the present applicant.
Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time. List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 54 M.Cr.C.No.10005/2015 14/1/2016 List along with M.Cr.C. No.10593/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.10246/2015 14/1/2016 Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter be listed before the co-ordinate Bench.
Registry to verify and list the matter accordingly.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 55 M.Cr.C.No.10264/2015 14/1/2016 Shri Subodh Abhyankar and Shri Deepak Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 56 M.Cr.C.No.137/2016 14/1/2016 Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cri.C. No.11467/2015 13/1/2016 Smt.Swati Ukhale, learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. petitioner Dawood Ahmad Manoori prays for quashment of the FIR filed Crime No.497/2015 for offence under 57 Section 407 of the IPC registered by police station Makdon, District Ujjain.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the prosecution case pertains to offence committed by the driver Ramsingh @ Raju and the present petitioner is the transporter and the alleged truck belongs to the present applicant and only the goods were loaded in the truck. Counsel submitted that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and hence,the FIR be quashed. Counsel further submitted that the driver in his deposition stated that co-accused Arjun and Gopal had accompanied him and they have not supported the case and hence the FIR needed to be quashed. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a respected businessman and he has been unnecessarily implicated in the matter.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petitioner was fully involved in the offence and the name of the present 58 petitioner is mentioned in the FIR. He is the alleged owner of the truck and has been implicated for offence under Section 407 of the IPC. Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Considering the above submissions, I find that the petition is prematurely filed and charges have not yet been framed and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage since the petitioner is named in the FIR. The petition is bereft of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cri.C. No.11636/2015 13/1/2016 Shri R.M. Modi and Shri Shyam Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner Bherudas Bairagi is aggrieved by the order 59 dated 27.10.2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Revision No. 316/2014 whereby the learned Lower Court Judge has dismissed the revision.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. the wife and child of the petitioner have filed a petition for offence under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tarana, District Ujjain on 14.8.2001 against the petitioner. The case was registered bearing M.J.C. No.69/2001 and the notices were directed to be issued to the petitioner and the case was listed on 7/9/2001. On 7/1/2001 directions were given to the respondents to pay two fold process fee i.e. through registered A.D. as well as ordinary mode and the case was fixed for service of notice to the petitioner/non-applicant on15/10/2001. On 15/10/2001 the respondents were present through their Advocate, but the present petitioner was absent and ex-parte order was passed for evidence of the petitioner. The 60 witnesses were present on 6/11/2001 and thereafter after taking ex-parte proceedings the final order has been passed on 7/2/2001. The Trial Court awarded maintenance for Rs.400/- p.m. Rs.200/-p.m. to the respondent No.1 wife and the respondent No.2 child respectively. The impugned order was passed on 7/12/2001 without granting any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and being aggrieved, a revision petition was filed before the District & Sessions Judge, Ujjain. However, the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision holding that it was was barred by time and the impugned order was passed on 27.10.2015. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the present petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that both the impugned orders were contrary to the provisions of law and that the petitioner was not at fault since he was never served the notice either by registered A.D. or ordinary mode and opportunity of 61 hearing was not granted to the petitioner, who is a labourer and he was away at Jabalpur. This primary fact was ignored by both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court and sufficient opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner since the maintenance amount is excessive. Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the present petition be allowed.
Considering the above averments and the revisional Court's order, without going to the merits of the case, the prayer for setting aside the decision of the ex-parte order needs to be considered. However, by way of abundant caution, Counsel has candidly admitted that the petitioner has not paid the maintenance, hence subject to depositing half the amount of arrears of maintenance till today within a period of two months from the date of this order. Subject to compliance, the present petition is partly allowed and it is directed that let fresh decision be 62 passed in the matter. No fresh notices are required to be issued to the respondents. The matter shall be heard on 15th of March, 2016. Failure to pay the amount within the stipulated period and the petitioner shall be liable to be arrested immediately without reference to this Court.
In the meanwhile, nothing coercive be done against the present petitioner.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
Cri.A. No.80/2016
13/1/2016
Shri Surendra Tuteja, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
63Heard on admission.
Call for the record.
List after receipt of the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C. No.227/2016 13/1/2016 Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant. He prays for a short time to file reply to the notice sent by the respondent.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 64 M.Cr.C. Nos.7595/2015 and 8040/2012 13/1/2016 Shri Akshat Pahadiya and Nilesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri R.C. Raikwar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment, which is opposed by the Counsel for the respondent No.2. He submits that the proceedings of the trial Court is unnecessarily prolonged.
In view of the above, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicants to argue the matter finally at the motion hearing stage.
List on 27.1.2016 for final disposal, as prayed. No further adjournment shall be granted.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 65 moni Judge M.Cr.C. Nos.9307/15, 9309/15, 9311/15 12/1/2016 Applicant Smt. Najiya Sultana is present in person. She submits that he Counsel Shri Sunil Verma is not available today and prays for time.
In view of the above, list on 22.1.2016 along with Cr.R.1286/2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1286/2015 12/1/2016 Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the 66 applicant/petitioner.
Respondent Smt. Najiya Sultana is present in person. She has filed the reply to the I.A. The reply is filed in a hand written application and the Counsel for the petitioner raised an objection in this regard. Respondent submits that she is willing to file a typed copy of the reply and a copy of the same be handed over to the Counsel for the petitioner within a week.
List on 22.1.2016 along with M.Cr.C. Nos.9307/15, 9309/15, 9311/15, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.52/2016 12/1/2016 Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
67Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant has candidly admitted that the matter was allotted to him by the Legal Services Authority and he was not aware that the appellant has already filed another appeal. Hence, he prayed for withdrawal of the present appeal. He however, submits that he would like to file fresh application for grant suspension of jail sentence regarding the appellant in the original appeal bearing Cri.A.1337/2015.
In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
M.Cr.C.No.9972/2013
12/1/2016
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for 68 the applicant/State.
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the applicant/State prays for time. He submits that the name of the Office of the Addl. Advocate General is not mentioned in the daily cause list.
Registry is directed to display the name of the Office of the Addl. Advocate General in the daily cause list prominently.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.4970/2014 12/1/2016 Shri J. Bohariya, learned Counsel prays for time 69 on behalf of Shri S.D. Lalwani, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.2368/2015 12/1/2016 Shri Anirudha Gokhale, learned Counsel for the applicant.
70Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.9273/2015, which is an application for impleading the complainants as party respondents.
For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and Counsel for the applicant is directed to implead the complainants as party respondents in the cause title of the application memo. He is also directed to pay process fee regarding the newly added respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the newly added respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
M.Cr.C.No.7210/2014
12/1/2016
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the 71 applicant.
Shri Padmanabh Saxena, learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time to address this Court.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.2131/2015 12/1/2016 Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel prays for time on behalf of Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as 72 prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.2676/2015 12/1/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri D.C. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties.
In view of the above, list on 20.1.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11838/2015 11/1/2016 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicants.
73Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Prabhulal and Kalusingh have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.538/2015 registered by police station Nagda, Tehsil Khachrod, District Ujjain for offence under Sections 34 (2) of the Excise Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that only 65.34 bulk litres of illicit liquor has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants. Counsel submitted that the entire family is suffering for their livelihood. Counsel submitted that applicant No.2 Kalusingh is only 30 years of age and he is likely to deteriorate in custody. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the trial is likely to take a long time. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since 74 the applicants have been arrested on 29/11/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicants and submitted that there are several case registered against the applicant No.1 Prabhulal and he is a habitual offender. However, he candidly admitted that there is no case registered against the applicant No.2 Kalusingh. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application on behalf of the applicant No.1 Prabhulal. Prayer is accepted and the application on behalf of the applicant No.1 Prabhulal is hereby dismissed as not pressed.
However, application on behalf of applicant No.2 Kalusingh alone is considered looking to the young age of the applicant and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail 75 on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1256/2015 11/1/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
76Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.7481/2015, which is an application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding petitioner Jagdish s/o Mangilal Chayra.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 and and under Section 188 of the IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has full chance of success in the revision. However, he submits that the revision is likely to take a long time. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of suspension of jail sentence since the petitioner has already completed ten months in custody out of one year jail sentence.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, I find that the 77 application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his having paid the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 11th of February, 2016 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the petitioner shall remain suspended till hearing of the revision.
List on 11/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11156/2015 11/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the 78 applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there are six criminal cases registered against the present applicant.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time to verify the same.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11171/2015 11/1/2016 List along with M.Cr.C.11156/2015.
79(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11901/2015 11/1/2016 Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the crime is similar in series of transaction and pending consideration before another Bench.
In view the above, list the matter before appropriate Bench, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 80 Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.167/2016 11/1/2016 Shri A. Siddique, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time. List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1276/2015 11/1/2016 Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned Counsel for the 81 appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Call for the record.
List after receipt of the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1025/2010 11/1/2016 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to keep the appellant present before this 82 Court.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to keep the appellant present before this Court; otherwise non-bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued against the appellant.
List on 25/1/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1297/2011 11/1/2016 Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for 83 the petitioner/State.
None for the respondents.
There is service report regarding bailable warrant issued against the respondent No.1 Iswhar. Whereas respondent No.2 Ashok is absconding, according to the report.
In view of the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the respondents for their appearance before this Court on 9/2/2016.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 9/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.8133/2012 11/1/2016 Shri Paurush Ranka, learned Counsel for the applicant.
84Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the most of the respondents.
Counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the present petition.
This M.Cr.C. is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.10326/2014 11/1/2016 List along with M.Cr.C. 7440/2013.
85(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.7440/2013 11/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Ghanshyam Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2, prays for a short time to supply the documents to the Counsel for the applicant.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent No.2.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 86 moni Cr.R.No.112/2014 11/1/2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant of arrest has already been issued, but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of the above, let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the petitioner Vikki @ Vikas s/o Mahendrasingh for his appearance before this Court on 11/2/2016. Notice be also issued to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
87List on 11/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1234/2014 11/1/2016 List along with Cr.R. 187/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.187/2014 11/1/2016 Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
88Shri Zishan Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.9363/2015.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for time file reply to this I.A. He is directed to file reply within two weeks.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.762/2015 08/1/2016 Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the 89 respondent/Central Narcotics Bureau.
Heard on I.A. No.9554/2015, which is an application for grant of temporary suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant Sheikh Javed s/o Sheikh Manjoor.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the wedding of daughter Shiekh Gulfasha Bi is scheduled to be held on 10/1/2016 and this fact has been verified by the Counsel for the respondent. Hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed at least for a period of fifteen days.
Counsel for the respondent submits that he has verified the fact and the marriage is scheduled to be held on 10/1/2016. However, he has drawn attention to this Court that the contraband of 4.5 kg. charas has been recovered from the joint possession of the appellant and other co-accused persons, which is way above the commercial quantity and the fine amount has also not been deposited by the appellant.
In view of the above, subject to depositing Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before the Trial 90 Court towards the fine by the appellant, the application for temporary suspension of jail sentence is allowed in the interest of justice.
It is further directed that the appellant be released on bail temporarily for a period of fifteen days from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his surrender before the concerned trial Court on or before 22nd January, 2016, under intimation in writing to this Court. In case of failure to do so and the appellant shall be liable to be arrested immediately by the police without reference to this Court.
C.c. today.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 91 Cr.A.No.1187/2015 08/1/2016 Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.1187/2015, which is an application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant Mukesh S/o Babu Dodiyar.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix had accompanied the appellant on consent and they lived together three months and she laboured along with the appellant. Counsel submitted that the Trial Court has convicted the appellant only because the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. However, there is no concrete evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix and the Trial Court has observed that the prosecutrix 92 was 17 years of age, but the father and the mother had stated that they have not knowledge regarding the date of birth of their daughter. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of suspension of jail sentence.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the appellant and submitted that the conviction is based due to minority of the prosecutrix. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to his having paid the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 8thof February, 2016 and on such subsequent dates as may 93 be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.
List on 8/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 94 Cr.A.No.701/2013 08/1/2016 Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8805/2015, which is the third application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding the appellant.
After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application. He however, prays for early hearing of the appeal.
In view of the above, the I.A.No.8805/2015 is dismissed as no pressed. However, list the appeal for final hearing under caption "High Court expedited cases", as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 95 Cr.A.No.38/2014 07/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.9074/2015. By this application, Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a heart patient and he is not getting proper treatment in the jail. Hence, Counsel prayed that the appeal be heard early.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State.
In view of the above, the I.A. is allowed and the appeal be listed for final disposal in the week commencing 15th of February, 2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 96 Cr.A.No.13/2014 07/1/2016 List along with Cri.A. No.38/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 97 Cr.A.Nos.540/2014 and 285/2015 07/1/2016 Shri I. Ansari, learned Counsel for the appellant in Cri. A. 540/2014.
Shri R.C.Mehra, learned Counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.No.285/2015.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Advocate for the respondent/State.
These two criminal appeals are filed by the same appellant. In Cri.A. No.285/2015 Counsel Shri R.C. Mehra has candidly admitted that the matter has been assigned to him by Legal Aid Service Authority and hence he has filed this appeal.
Considering the Rules, the later appeal i.e. Cri.A. No.285/2015 is not maintainable.
In view of the above, Counsel also submits that he does not wish to press the Cr.A. No.285/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
98Accordingly the Cri.A. No.285/2015 is dismissed as not pressed.
Cri.A. No.540/2014 be listed for final hearing in due course.
A copy of this order be kept in Cri.A. No.285/2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 99 Cr.A.No.837/2014 07/1/2016 List along with Cri.A.No. 817/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
Cr.A.No.817/2014
07/1/2016
Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that there is an externment order and hence, he could not keep the appellant present before this Court.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to verify the same.
List in the week commencing 25.1.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 100 Cr.R.Nos.1273/2014 & 1536/2014 07/1/2016 Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent. He prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1434/2014 & 82/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Dilip Singh Pawar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Service report is awaited.
101List after two weeks on any Wednesday.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A.Nos.1577/2014, 1578/14 and 1605/2014 07/1/2016 List along with Cri. A. No.1587/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
Cri.A.No.1587/2014
07/1/2016
Shri Abhijeet Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.T. Thanewala, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
Shri Mitul Saxena, learned Counsel for the 102 respondent Nos. 4,5,6 & 9.
Respondent No.8 K.K. Thakorlal Gandhi is present in person and he has filed the reply.
Counsel for the other respondents pray for time. List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
Cr.R. No. 768/2015
07/1/2016
Shri A.K. Sarawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner prays that the matter be 103 listed before the Division Bench.
Registry is directed to verify the same and list before the appropriate Bench.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
Cr.A. No. 1541/2014
07/1/2016
List along with Cr.R. No.768/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1964/2014 07/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.
104In view of the above, list for final hearing in due course.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
Cr.A.No.36/2015
07/1/2016
List along with Cri.A. No.197/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
Cr.A.No.197/2015
07/1/2016
Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal has 105 already been admitted for final hearing.
List for final hearing in due course. In the meanwhile, call for the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A.Nos.62/2015 and 262/2015 07/1/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission.
Call for the record.
List after receipt of the record along with Cri. Appeal Nos.1287/15 and 111/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
106
Cr.A.No.204/2015
07/1/2016
Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The report from Chowki Prabhari, police Chowki, Dalouda, Police Station Bhavgarh, District Mandsaur indicates that the sole appellant Munnasingh s/o Mansingh Rajput has died on 6/7/2015. A copy of the death certificate is also attached with the report.
In view of the above the appeal of the sole appellant Munnasingh shall stand abated and therefore, the appeal is dismissed as such.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
107
Cr.A.No.1113/2012
07/1/2016
List along with Cri. Appeal No.1112/2012.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1112/2012 07/1/2016 Shri Akhlaque W. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8978/2015. By this application, the appellant No.1 Khalid Ahmad wants to surrender his bail 108 bonds since he is in custody for another offence in the Central jail, Bhopal.
In view of the above, production warrant be issued for appearance of appellant Khalid Khan before this Court on 2.2.2016.
Also heard on I.A.No.8979/2015, which is an application for change of Surety for respondent No.2 Shami.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply to this application.
List on 2.2.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A.Nos.135/2013 & 151/2013 07/1/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for 109 the respondent/State.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.195/2013 07/1/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant of arrest has already been served, but none appeared on behalf of the appellant.
In view of the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant Bhagwansingh s/ o Peerulal Gurjar for his appearance before this Court on 2/2/2016. Notice be also issued to the Surety as to 110 why the surety amount be not forfeited. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
List on 2/2/2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.7640/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without 111 reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondent along with M.Cr.C. No.7638/2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.7638/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent, though duly served. List along with M.Cr.C. No.7640/2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 112 M.Cr.C.No.8923/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply. He is also directed to produce the case diary.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.9066/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Government 113 Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to verify whether the petition is rendered infructuous or not?
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.Nos.9952/2015 and 10043/2015 07/1/2016 Ku. Kirti Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. Nos.8365/2015 & 8423/2015, which are the application for stay.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file 114 reply to the I.A. Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.10690/2015 07/1/2016 Shri R.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Yogesh Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the complainant.
115Counsel for the applicant submits that the does not wish to press this petition.
This M.Cr.C. is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.9800/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the present petition.
116This M.Cr.C. is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.Nos.7440/2013 &10326/2014 07/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Government for the respondent/State.
Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. He prays for time on behalf of his 117 senior Counsel.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent No.2.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.549/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent/Corporation.
Heard on I.A. No.6772/2015. By this application, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 118 in jail for another offence at Police Station Banganga in Crime No.1012/2014, but now he has been released according to personal information and hence,prays for time to file appropriate application.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to do the needful.
List in the next week for disposal, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1000/2015 07/1/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal be listed before appropriate Bench.
Registry is directed to verify and list before 119 appropriate Bench.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1604/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Atul Chachondiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time on behalf of his senior Counsel.
List after two weeks, as prayed. In the meanwhile, call for the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1612/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Padmanabh Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to address this Court regarding maintainability of this petition.
120List in the week commencing 18/1/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.3274/2015 07/1/2016 List along with M.Cr.C. No.3270/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.3270/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5.
121Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Shri Paurush Ranka, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the respondents are duly served and represented through their Counsel.
In view of the above, the defect may be ignored and no fresh notices are required to be issued.
List for disposal in the week commencing 18/1/2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.4077/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State, prays for time to file the process fee.
Last opportunity of the two weeks' time is granted 122 to the Counsel for the applicant to do the needful. Failure to pay the process within stipulated period and the case shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.4869/2015 07/1/2016 Shri H.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant, prays for time to cure the defects.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to cure the defects, as pointed out by the Registry.
Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 123 moni M.Cr.C.No.5914/2015 07/1/2016 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents though duly served. Last opportunity is granted to the respondents. List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11569/2015 124 06/1/2016 Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to produce the case diary.
Counsel for the applicant may file statement of the witnesses recorded.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.3046/2015 125 06/1/2016 Shri Gwaliory, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Paurush Ranka, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the adjournment sought by the Counsel for the applicant.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicant.
List on 20.1.2016, as agreed by both the Counsel.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.3228/2015 126 06/1/2016 Shri Harish Pawar and Shri M.D.Patil, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. He prays for time.
The matter can be disposed off, however, the case diary is not available today.
List on 27.1.2016. On that day the case diary shall be made available and the matter shall be heard finally. No further adjournment shall be granted.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11158/2015 127 06/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Aetu s/o Kalu Devda has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.199/2014 registered by police station Rawti, District Ratlam for offence under Sections 302, 363, 366, 376, 294, 323,34 of the IPC Counsel for the applicant has candidly admitted the fact that this is the second application moved on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail and the first application has been dismissed with liberty to file fresh application after certain stages of trial. Counsel vehemently urged the fact the incident took place in three parts. Counsel admitted that the applicant is involved only in the offence under Section 376(1) of 128 the IPC and he has filed a copy of the order framing charge to indicate that the applicant is not involved in offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicant is tribal Bheel and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. However, Counsel candidly admitted that the prosecutrix is only 17 years of age. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 7/10/2014.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant was fully involved in the matter. However, Counsel admitted that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC has not been registered against the present applicant. However, he prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of 129 allegations and looking to the young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the 130 police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11363/2015 131 06/1/2016 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Sunil s/o Mangilal has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.594/2015 registered by police station Mahakaal, District Ujjain for offence under Sections 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication and the applicant is only 21 years of age and he is likely to be deteriorate in custody. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the contraband of 17.280 bulk litres of bear was recovered from an open place and the the applicant has full chance of success in the trial. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been 132 arrested on 9/11/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant was a juvenile delinquent earlier; and hence the applicant did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and looking to the young age of the applicant and he is likely to deteriorate in custody, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned 133 trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.11428/2015 134 06/1/2016 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of the applicant's son is to be solemnized on 17/2/2016 and the wedding card is also filed.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to verify the same.
List after a week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 135 M.Cr.C.No.11475/2015 06/1/2016 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Ranu s/o Ramcharan Yadav has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.1248/2015 registered by police station Chimanganj Mandi, District Ujjain for offence under Sections 354, 452, 323, 294 & 506 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant was 26 year old labourer and his entire family is suffering for their livelihood. There is no mens-rea and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicant is a tribal man and the challan has been put up and he is no longer required 136 for further investigation. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 3/12/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the offence under Section 354 of the IPC was made out and aunt of the complainant has also intervened to pacify both the parties. Hence, Counsel submitted that the applicant did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and looking to the young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 137 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
138
M.Cr.C.No.11531/2015
06/1/2016
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this third application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Ladhulal s/o Nanuram has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.227/2015 registered by police station Sardarpur, District Dhar for offence under Sections 363, 354/511 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that although this is the third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, liberty has been granted to file fresh application after the prosecutrix has been examined in Court. Now the prosecurtix and her father have been examined in Court and not supported the prosecution story and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicant is 40 year old 139 labourer and his entire family is suffering. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 1/6/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the prosectrix was a minor at the time of the incident and memo under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. she has supported the prosecution case. Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the 140 satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 141 M.Cr.C.No.11504/2015 06/1/2016 Shri Kaushal Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this application.
This M.Cr.C. is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 142 M.Cr.C.No.11548/2015 06/1/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Paramjeet s/o Braj Mohan Singh Devda has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.671/2015 registered by police station Aazad Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 376, 342 & 506 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. He further submitted that the applicant is only 21 years of age; whereas the prosecutrix is a consenting party and had gone with consent and they also studied together. Counsel submitted that the entire family of the applicant is suffering since the applicant has been arrested on 28/11/2015. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, 143 has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the prosecutrix has categorically stated that the rape has been committed by the present applicant. However, he has candidly admitted that the M.L.C.did not indicate any sign of the rape. However, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and considering the young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
144It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni