Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 8]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nagendra Singh Patel @ Bhaiyan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2017

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      MCRC-18763-2017




                                                            sh
          (NAGENDRA SINGH PATEL @ BHAIYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)




                                                      e
      3




                                                   ad
      Jabalpur, Dated : 20-11-2017
      Shri Rakesh Singh, counsel for the petitioner.
                                             Pr
      Sushri G.K. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

a Heard on this third application for bail under Section 439 hy of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the ad petitioner Nagendra Singh Patel in crime no.100/2017 registered by P.S. Amarpatan, District-Satna under M Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.

of His two applications for the same relief were dismissed as withdrawn by orders dated 19.04.2017 and rt 14.07.2017. The second application was dismissed on ou 14.07.2017 as withdrawn with liberty to renew the C prayer after recording of the statement of the h prosecutrix.

ig This third application has been filed on the ground that H the charge was framed in the matter on 17.05.2017 and in the past five months, neither the prosecutrix nor her parents have appeared before the Court to depose, inspite of several attempts made by the trial Court. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of the entire set of order- sheets of the trial Court. A perusal of aforesaid order-sheets reveals that indeed on several occasions, processes were issued to the prosecutrix and her parents but they failed to appear. However, on most of the occasions, the issued processes sh were neither returns served nor unserved by the Police but the Court has failed to take any action in the matter.

e In these circumstances, it appears that the trial is simply ad drifting along.

Pr Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to release the petitioner on a hy aforesaid sole ground. But it would be proper to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and take action as per ad law, against the erring Police Officials in case the M processes are not duly served and returned. Consequently, this third application for bail is disposed of of with following directions:

rt The trial Court shall expedite the trial and shall take ou appropriate action against erring Police Officials as per law, if processes are not duly served. C Let a copy of this Court be communicated immediately to h the trial Court.
ig The petitioner shall be free to renew the prayer for bail H after a lapse of two months from the date of this order.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2017.11.20 20:50:10 -08'00'