Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajunath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020
Rajunath Vs. State of M.P.
Indore: Dated:-11/11/2020:-
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Harshlata Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Crime Under Section Police Date of No. Station Arrest 322/2019 307/34 of IPC Bhanpura, 21/03/2020 Mandsaur
1. As declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
2. The petitioner has 6 criminal records, which are as under:-
Sl. Crime No. Under Section Police Station No 1 44/12 395 of IPC Nahargarh 2 18/12 395 of IPC Nahargarh 3 53/22.2.12 395 of IPC Modak 4 53/21.3.12 399, 402 of IPC, 3/25 & Chechat 4/25 of Arms Act 5 313/11 384, 395, 412 of IPC Ramganjmandi 6 116/20 395 of IPC Bhanpura
3. In the backdrop of criminal antecedents, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition 2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. with liberty to file fresh application after framing of charge(s).
4. Prayer is allowed.
5. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Digitally signed by Soum Soumya Ranjan Dalai DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, ya postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e Ranjan 84322bb5797cf28ee6 0671538b737cf52962 d84d7b527897e53ac, Dalai cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2020.11.11 18:09:24 +05'30' 3HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. MCRC No.4313/2018 Indore: Dated:-06.02.2018 Shri M. Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State.
Heard.
1. This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.2017 passed by JMFC, Sardarpur, in Criminal Case No.234/2010 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the non-petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC.
2. In their statements complainant - Beenabai (PW-1) and her husband Narsingh (PW-2) have deposed before the Court that at the time of incident, the accused/respondent beat her by a stick and doctor also found injuries on the person of the complainant.
3. Considering the statement, medical report and other evidence available on record, I find it a fit case in which leave to appeal can be granted.
4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and leave is granted.
5. As a consequence of this order, Office is directed to register the appeal as an admitted appeal and proceed further as per rules.
6. On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/- against the non-petitioner. He is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court 23.04.2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.
7. With the aforesaid, MCRC No.4313/2018 is allowed and is 4HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. accordingly, disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge 5HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.A. No.1226/2018 Indore, Dated: 07/03/2018 Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Issue notices to the respondents, on payment of P.F. within a week, returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial Court be called for. Heard on I.A. No.1637/2018 - an application for stay. Issue notice of this application also. However, subject to depositing the 50% amount of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two months from today (including costs and interest), the execution of the remaining part of the award shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing. Failing in the compliance, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report and record for hearing on I.A. No.1637/2018.
(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 6HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23828/2017* (State of MP vs. Pappu @ Tejprakash & Ors.) 03/01/2018 Ms. Bhakti Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State.
Heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal as well as an application for condonation of delay.
This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.07.2017 passed by 3rd A.S.J., Shajapur, in S.T. No.ST/400143/2016 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the non-petitioners Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 in alternative 307/34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act.
On due consideration, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay of 33 days and it is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed, meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing. Accordingly, application filed by the petitioner under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted.
Office is directed to register it as criminal appeal. Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be registered and proceed as per rules, as admitted.
On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to 7HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. issue bailable warrants of Rs.10,000/- against the non-petitioners. They are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 16.04.2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.
With the aforesaid, MCRC No.23828/2017 is allowed and is accordingly, disposed of.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
soumya
8HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. 9HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.(Absence format) Indore: Dated:- / /2018:-
Mr. N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.26462/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant Dharmendra.
Appellant-Dharmendra is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri N.J. Dave, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.26462/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the Appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 11.07.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 10HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE R.P. No.260/2017 (delay format) Indore, Dated: 09/03/2018 Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A. No.3890/2017, an application for condonation of delay. Review petition is barred by 87 days.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.3890/2017 is allowed. Delay in filing this petition is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable within 6 weeks.
Shri HY Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State, therefore, no further notice is required. He prays for and is granted six weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter along with the record of W.A. No.22/2017.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) Judge Judge
11HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. soumya 12HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. MCC No.3394/2017 (restore format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Mr. A. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard.
This is a petition for restoration of FA No.282/2017 which was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 25.10.2017 for non payment of deficit Court fee vide order dated 27.11.2017.
It is submitted by the learnd counsel for the petitioner that he has filed in total eight appeals and due to inadvertant mistake he could not deposit court fee of Rs.1,40,000/- in the present appeal, therefore, the FA No.282/2017 was dismissed.
Now, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will file the deficit court fees within a week.
Considering the aforesaid and affidavit of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to restore the case to its original number. Prayer for restoration of FA No.282/2017 is allowed.
FA No.282/2017 be restored to its original number. A copy of this order be placed in the record of FA No.282/2017.
With the aforesaid, this MCC stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge 13HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. MCRC No.20975/2017 (dismissed for want of prosecution) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 None for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Earlier also on 21.11.2017 no one gave appearance on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has lost his interest in prosecuting the present petition. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Virender Singh) Judge 14HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. MCRC No.22743/2017 (Temporary bail format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri A. Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.23928/2017 and application for granting temporary bail.
Earlier also temporary bail was granted vide order dated 17.11.2017 due to exams of 5th Samester of Final Exams of B.Com. The petitioner has surrendered today and he is in jail.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the exams were being held from 18.11.2017 and the petitioner was granted temporary bail for this reason, but, the exams of 23.11.2017, 27.11.2017 and 30.11.2017, 2017 are postponed due to election of student union and the same are going to be held on 08.12.2017, 12.12.2017 and 15.12.2017, therefore, he prays for further temporary bail.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner be released on temporary bail upon his 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. The petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court on 18.12.2017 and the trial Court shall submit surrender report thereafter before this Court.
List after two weeks for arguments on regular bail application. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance. C.C. today.
(Virender Singh) Judge 15HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. CRA No.220/2011 (bailable warrant) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri R.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.
Let issue fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant no.1-Jagdish to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 27.01.2018 and notice be also issued to the surety as to why surety bond be not forfeited, returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge 16HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. CRA No.226/2012 (perpetual warrant) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.
Let perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant to secure his presence and notice be also issued to the surety as to why surety bond be not forfeited, returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge 17HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. CRA No.1411/2012 (non-bailable format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the appellant Bhagwan @ Bhagwana to secure his presence on 15.04.2018.
(Virender Singh) Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.____ (____ vs. State of MP) Indore: Dated:- /02/2019:-
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Raghuvir Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Admit.
I.A. No.5815/2018 is taken up. This is an application for suspension of sentence of petitioner Dinesh.
The petitioner is convicted under Section 34(1)(A) r/w 34(2) of MP Excise Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.25000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 27/12/2014 passed in Criminal Case No.1365/2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in convicting the petitioner without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that the hearing of the revision is likely to take long time in its final disposal and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petition is likely to take time for final hearing, the application is allowed.
The jail sentence passed against the petitioner shall remain suspended subject to depositing of fine amount, if any and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/01/2020 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this petition.
(Virender Singh) Judge Soumya 20HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.210/2018 (Jagdish Sahu vs. State of MP) 17.01.2018 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is the second appeal/bail application under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by appellant-Jagdish Sahu, who has been arrested by Police on 23.08.2017 in Crime No.372/2017, Police Station- Vijaynagar (AJK), District- Indore, in connection with offence under Sections 376(2)(N) of IPC and under Section 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Arguments heard with the help of case-diary. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was an employee of the present appellant. The prosecutrix was a widow having two children. It was alleged that the present appellant gave false impression that his wife and children were not living with him and under a false promise of marriage, he continuously exploited her sexually. It was also said that she went pregnant, and thereafter,t he matter was reported. It was also said that the present appellant threatened the prosecutrix and her two minor children.
First appeal/application was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court with liberty to repeat the prayer after 21HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. statement of the prosecutrix. Now the appellant has filed statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Court. In his Court statement prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the appellant. She has only deposed on oath before the Court that the appellant was living with her. One day suddenly he left the house without her knowledge and without informing her. As she could not find his whereabouts, therefore, she informed the police about his missing. Nothing has been stated in the report.
Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for bail.
I have gone through the record.
In view of the statement of the prosecutrix, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.12.2017 is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions that:-
(i)The appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial:
(ii)The appellant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, thereat or promise to prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the 22HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. Court.
(iii)The appellant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;
(iv)In case, any default in attendance before the Court or involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.
(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 23HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1930/2018 (Bail jump format) (Ravji vs. State of MP) Indore: Dated:- 30/01/2018:-
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER This bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in connection with crime number 334/09 U/s.392 of IPC registered at Police Station -Sardarpur, District- Dhar.
2. As per information given by the accused/petitioner, this is the first bail application in connection with the present crime number. No other bail application is either filed or pending before or decided by any coordinate bench of this court or by Hon'ble the Apex court in the same crime number.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no evidence against him. He was earlier granted bail and was regularly attending the Court. Later, he went to Gujarat to earn livelihood but could not be returned and leave was not granted by his employer. Due to his absence, the Court issued arrest warrant and the police have taken him in custody on 29.07.2017 and since then he is in jail. Conclude of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is permanent resident of Sardarpur, District-Dhar. There is no 24HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. possibility of his absconding. He is ready to furnish adequate security. Therefore, he may be granted bail.
4. The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.
5. In view of the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused on bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.
6. It is directed that the petitioner Ravji S/o Badiya be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Twenty Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, out of which one shall be local surety, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;
(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.
(v) The learned trial Court shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the earlier bail bond furnished by the petitioner.
(Virender Singh) Judge 25HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. soumya 26HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. R.P. No.278/2018 (correction format) Indore: Dated:- 26.02.2018 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State.
Heard on I.A. No.1310/2018 - an application for condonation of delay of 474 days in filing this review petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-State was under a bonafide belief that MCC No.958/2016 has been allowed, therefore, the writ petition No.7053/2015 will be restored. However, the said petition was not restored for a long time due to mistake regarding number of W.P. occurred in the order passed in MCC No.958/2016, therefore, the delay has occurred in filing this review petition.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1310/18 is allowed and the delay is condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking correction in the order dated 16/12/2016 passed in MCC No.958/2016.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner-State has submitted that earlier the petitioner-State had preferred a 27HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. MCC No.958/2016 for restoration of WP No.7053/2015, which was dismissed on 26/09/2016 under peremptory order. It is further submitted that this Court was pleased to allow the MCC No.958/2016 vide order dated 16/12/2016, however, due to typographical error in the number of writ petition i.e. W.P. No.7053/2015, the said petition could not be restored.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed.
It is directed that now the order dated 16/12/2016 passed in MCC No.958/2016 shall be read as under:-
In the second line of paragraph No.3 of order, the name of writ petition shall be read as "W.P. No.7053/2015" in place of "W.P. No.7053/2016".
In second line of paragraph No.7 of the said order, the name of writ petition shall be read as "W.P. No.7053/2015"
in place of "W.P. No.7503/2015".
In the second line of paragraph No.8 of the said order, the name of writ petition shall be read as "W.P. No.7053/2015" in place of "W.P. No.7053/2016".
With the aforesaid, the present review petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be maintained in MCC No.958/2016 for record.
(Virender Singh) 28HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. Judge soumya 29HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018 (Format-438) Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER Crime No. Under Section Police Station As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
As per information given by the accused, no other bail application is either filed or pending or has been decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the conscious of one Sajjan.
Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.
30HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. (VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE soumya HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018 Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.227/2017 registered at Police Station -Javad, district - Neemuch for the offence punishable under section 8/15 & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
As per information given by the accused, no other bail application is either filed or pending or has been decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.
Learned counsel further submits that under identical circumstances, co-accused Lalsingh has been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in 31HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C. No.21672/2017 on 07/12/2017 and on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is entitled to the same.
Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application, however, he has fairly admitted that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of co-accused Lalsingh, who has been granted anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court.
According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the conscious of one Sajjan.
Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances and on the ground of parity, the application is allowed and direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioner or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE 32HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. soumya 33HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. CRA No.4326/2017 30/10/2017:-
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Also heard on IA No.5410/2018, which is second application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2018.
Appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 473/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 4-10-4-10 years RI respectively and fine of Rs.1000/--2000/--1000/--2000/- respectively with default stipulation for identifying Narmada Prasad as Nathuram.
Learned counsel for the appellant submit that during the trial appellant was on bail. Final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. The appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
He further submits that complainant Sumer Singh in his statement has stated nothing against the present appellant and learned public prosecutor has declared him hostile and even after cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record against the present appellant and in cross-examination the complainant has clearly denied the involvement of the 34HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. present appellant in the crime. He has stated that he himself brought the appellant for his own identification.
Per contra, learned public prosecutor has drew my attention towards para no. 24 of the impugned judgment, in which learned Trial Court has held that the present appellant has identified Narmada Prasad as Nathuram at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the appellant is also involved in the crime and convicted him.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the aforesaid, particularly the statement of the complainant Sumer Singh before the learned Trial Court and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence. Thus, the application (IA No.5410/2018) for suspension of sentence is allowed.
It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 07.03.2019 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
35HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. List for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge 36HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.511/2018* (temporary format) (Ganpatlal Vs. State of MP) Indore, Dated:03/05/2018 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for temporary suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant - Ganpatlal on the ground of death of his father.
As per report of S.H.O. Police Station - Y.D. Nagar, District-Mandsaur, dated 02.05.2018, the death of the father of appellant is correct.
Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application for temporary suspension of jail sentence vide I.A. No.2996/2018 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant/Ganpatlal shall remain suspended for a period of ten days from the date of his release and he be released subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and he shall surrender before the trial Court after completion of the period of ten days. In case of failure to surrender within the stipulated time, the trial Court shall take coercive action against the appellant without reference to this Court.
(Virender Singh) Judge 37HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. soumya 38HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. W.P NO.2500/2016 14.07.2016:
None for the petitioner.
Due to call made by the High Court Bar Association, Indore, Advocates are abstaining from Court work.
Case is, therefore, adjourned.
39HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. (Short Sentence) CRA .2017 Shri ---------, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.9536/2016, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.
The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC and has been sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. It is further submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time in its final disposal and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
Though the prayer for suspension is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 8357/16 is allowed and it is directed that on execution of personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial sentence imposed against him shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2016 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
CC as per rules.
40HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge soumya 41HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1034/2009 (Kailash Vs. State of MP) Indore, Dated:12/10/2018 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for temporary suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant - Ganpatlal on account of death his mother.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 27/08/2009 passed in ST No.286/2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Dewas, whereby the appellants are convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer 1 years additional R.I. It has been stated that certain rituals are going to take place on 15/10/2018 and he was permitted to attend the funeral by the orders of the Collector, therefore, temporary suspension be granted to the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for grant of suspension.
Considering the averments as made in the application and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the period of custody and the period of sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A. No.7368/2018 is allowed and it is directed that the substantive 42HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. jail sentence of the appellant/Kailash shall remain suspended for a period of 7 days and he be released subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The sentence is suspended for a period of one month from today. He will surrender on 19/10/2018.
CC as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 43HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs. State of M.P. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused has been completed the jail sentence including the default clause as he is in jail since 06/02/2007.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the fact and submit a report.
Later on:
Learned counsel for the State has produced a report dated ____ received
from _____. As per report received from ____, the accused has been completed the entire jail sentnece imposed against him, therefore, the appeal has become rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as rendered infructuous. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.