Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Faijan @ Sonu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2023

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                       1

 IN THE         HIGH COURT              OF MADHYA PRADESH

                            AT I N D O R E
                                 BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

                    ON THE 1st OF FEBRUARY, 2023



                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5021 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
FAIJAN @ SONU S/O ABDUL RASHID SHEIK, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER
CHANDRA NAGAR AGAR ROAD UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                                .....APPLICANT
(SHRI UMESH SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER     THROUGH      POLICE    STATION
CHIMANGANJMANDI UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                            .....RESPONDENT
(SHRI G.S. CHOUHAN, DEPUTY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                  ORDER

They are heard. Perused the case diary/ challan papers.

2. This is the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.683/2022, registered at Police Station Chimanganj, District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act. He is in custody since 13.10.2022.

3. As per the prosecution, on 13.10.2022, on receipt of a secret information, the police party reached Vinayak Green City and apprehended 6 persons who were present over there and were conspiring to commit a dacoity. They tried to run but were caught by the police. Their identities were asserted and one of them was found to be the present applicant from whom red chilli powder was recovered. The accused were thereafter arrested and have been implicated for the alleged offence for preparing to commit dacoity.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The entire story as put forth by prosecution is highly unbelievable. The accused are stated to have been making preparations for commission of dacoity but it has nowhere been brought on record as to from what material the same was inferred by the police. No recovery of any dangerous weapon has been made from the applicant and only red chilli powder is alleged to have been recovered from him, which recovery is wholly suspicious. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed hence further custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The applicant is in custody since 13.10.2022 and the trial is likely to take time for its conclusion. On such grounds, prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.

5. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He further submits that two more antecedents are registered against the applicant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary.

7. The allegation against the applicant is of planning to commit a dacoity 3 alongwith the other co-accused persons. He is alleged to have been carrying red chilli powder and no recovery of any fire arm has been made from him. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in custody since 13.10.2022 and his further custodial interrogation is no longer required. The possibility of the trial taking time for its conclusion cannot be ruled out. Thus, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

9. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-