Uttam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2016

[Cites 47, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Uttam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2016

                                                        1

                  M.Cr.C. No.842/2016*
09.02.2016
        Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned Counsel
for the petitioner.
        Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy. A.G.
for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the petitioner prays for analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. No.846/2016.

List analogously in the next week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.916/2016* 09.02.2016 Smt. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF 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 time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.

List after service of notice on the respondent.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.10672/2014 09.02.2016 Shri Pradeep Gupta and Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is likelihood settlement between the parties and he prays for one last opportunity.

List after two weeks, as prayed. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. Nos.608/2016 & 400/2016 09.02.2016 Shri Ajay Bagadia and Shri L.S. Chandiramani, learned Counsel for the 3 applicant.

Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no verification from the respondent/State.

Counsel for the State prays for time. List on 17.02.2016, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. Nos.4083/15, 5701/15, 5713/15, 5716/15, 5723/15, 7740/15, 8428/15, 8433/15, 8444/15 & 8445/15 09.02.2016 List along with M.Cr.C. No.8423/2015, after two weeks.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 4 M.Cr.C. No.8423/2015 09.02.2016 Shri R.T. Thanewala and Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State.

Shri Sourabh Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the complainant.

Chief Manager Shri Madhav Motvani is present in person.

After substantial discussion it is found that the applicant initially agreed to pay Rs.75 Lakh towards in the O.T.S. account.

Both the Counsel pray for time to seek instructions.

List after two weeks, along with M.Cr.C. Nos.4083/15, 5701/15, 5713/15, 5716/15, 5723/15, 7740/15, 8428/15, 8433/15, 8444/15 & 8445/15.

Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 5 M.Cr.C. No.9780/2015 09.02.2016 Shri Jitendra Shejwal, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State.

After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.

The application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10002/2015 09.02.2016 Shri Vinod Thakur and Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent-State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Kushalsingh s/o Dalatsingh Rajput has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.172/15 registered 6 by Police Station Malhargad, District Mandsaur for offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS, Act. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant is 30 years old person and entire family dependent on him for their livelihood. Counsel submitted that only 1 kg. of opium has been seized from the conscious possession of the applicant, which is way below the commercial quantity as prescribed under the provisions of law. Besides he submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal record and if at all this is first attempt by the applicant and he has full chance of success in the trial, which is likely to take long time and Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 22.08.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and has submitted that the applicant was found along with the contraband. He has, however, candidly admitted that the there was no criminal record as per the report received from the Thana Prabhari Police Station Malhargad and 7 Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application. On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed. However, stringent measures need to be imposed.

It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of 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.

By way of abundant caution, 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI M.Cr.C. No.867/2016* 08.02.2016 None for the applicant.

Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State.

List after four weeks.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.525/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Gourav Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Shankar s/o Thavriya Wakhala 9 has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.362/15 registered by Police Station Ranapur, District Jhabua for offence under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC & 5 (L) /6 of POCSO Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant himself is 19 years of age and it was a case of affair of heart and the prosecutrix has lived with the applicant one month as eight days. The missing person report has been filed by disgruntled father of the prosecutrix. Counsel submitted that statement u/S.164 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix before the Court applicant has been completely exonerated. He candidly admitted that she is married with the applicant and prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 02.10.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and has submitted that according to the mark sheet of prosecutrix, her date of birth is 02.02.2000 and she is only 15 years of age at the time to incident. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find 10 that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

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 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI M.Cr.C. No.595/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State. He prays for time to file post mortem report.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.608/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Shri LS Chandiramani, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State. He seeks time to verify the information.

Counsel for the applicant submits that connected matter i.e. M.Cr.C. No.400/2016 is listed tomorrow.

List this matter along with M.Cr.C. 400/2016 tomorrow i.e.09.02.2016, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.609/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy. A.G for the respondent/State is again praying for time to 12 verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.

Last opportunity is granted to the State, otherwise the case shall be considered without the record.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.710/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Gourav Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Kumavat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

After arguing the matter for some time, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this application. He, however, craves liberty from this Court to file fresh application after some material witness has been examined in Court.

Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State.

Therefore, the application is dismissed as not pressed and liberty as prayed for is granted to the applicant.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.745/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Kumavat, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Tersingh s/o Jamsingh has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.464/2015 registered by Police Station Manawar District Dhar for offence under Section 376/506 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that prosecutrix was a married lady and is 35 years of age and on being caught by her husband she cried foul. He submitted that the 14 applicant has full chance of success in the trial and he prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 15.11.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that FIR was delayed because the complainant are rustic villagers and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.754/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicants.

Shri Mukesh Kumavat, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicants Rambabu s/o Badrilal and Rambabu s/o Ramchander have prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.19/2016 registered by Police Station Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh (Biaora) for offence under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that both the applicants are villagers and only 63 bulk liters of country made liquor has been seized from the joint possession of the applicants. Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant are sole bread earner of their families and they are arrested on 08.01.2016.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and has submitted that the applicants were fully implicated in the matter and he prayed for dismissal of the application.

It is ordered that the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their 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.

By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that they shall also mark their 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 applicants in custody immediately.

It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 17 Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.892/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Rajveer Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Kumavat, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Ratanlal s/o Ramaji has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.155/2015 registered by Police Station Hatpipliya, District Dewas for offence under Sections 366, 363, 294, 323/34 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that at the most offence for one of harbouring the prosecutrix, however, unfortunately the prosecutrix has died due to snake bites. He submitted that there is no incriminating evidence available on record to implicate the applicant and he prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 27.10.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and has submitted that the applicant was present on the place of occurrence. He, however, candidly admitted that the 18 prosecutrix has died due to snake bites. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.984/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Kumavat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State.

Therefore, the application is dismissed as not pressed and liberty as prayed for is granted to the applicant.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 20 M.Cr.C. No.1300/2016* 08.02.2016 Shri Anupam Chouhan on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant prays for time.

Shri Mukesh Kumavat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No. 574/2016* 05.02.2016 Shri C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Smt. Seema w/o Late Mukesh Chouhan has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.763/2014 registered by Police Station Banganga, District Indore for offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/34 of IPC and 25 Arms Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently 21 urged the fact that the applicant is a lady; aged 27 years of age and the offence is based purely on circumstantial evidence and there is no incriminating evidence available on record except the fact that the applicant was the wife of deceased and there are certain allegations of having illicit relation with co-accused Jogeshwar. He submitted on the basis of mobile telephone calls of co-accused Jogeshwar, the applicant has been apprehended and trial has been commenced. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 13.07.2014 and there are two children dependent upon her.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and has submitted that PW.2 Babulal, who is the brother-in- law of the deceased has categorically stated that the present applicant was loose moral character and had illicit relation with co-accused Jogeshwar. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and the fact that the applicant is a lady; aged 27 years and she has been arrested on 13.07.2014, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed. However, 22 stringent measures need to be imposed.

It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on her furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for her 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.

By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that she shall also mark her 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 23 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.579/2016* 05.02.2016 Shri Gourav Laad, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Ritesh s/o Rameshsingh Kharti has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.80/2015 registered by Police Station Maheshwar, District- Khargone for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and 3/ 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and 3 (2) 5 SC/ST Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and the applicant himself is 22 years of age and it was a case of consent. Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix herself stated before the Court and she was 19 years of age and falsely implicated the applicant on being recovered. He submitted that prosecutrix has gone with the applicant in several open places and lived with him more than two months and never protested. Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 23.05.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other 24 hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that according to the scholar register the prosecutrix was only 15 years of age and her date of birth is 5.10.2000. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and the fact that the applicant is a young boy, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI M.Cr.C. No.623/2016* 25 05.02.2016 Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Mrs. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant prays for time. Counsel for the respondent submits that case diary has been summoned and may be allowed to be sent back.

Prayer being reasonable is accepted. List after two week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.720/2016* 05.02.2016 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Irshad s/o Ayyub Khan has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.236/15 registered by Police Station Nahargarh, Mandsaur for offence under Sections. 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 342, 506 of IPC and 3,4,5(L)/6 of POCSO Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication.

Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that offences could not be made out against the applicant because the prosecutrix has now been examined in Court and has not assigned any overt act regarding the said offences to the applicant except the fact that only a car of the applicant was used in transporting the prosecutrix and memo u/S.27 of Evidence Act of co- accused Sunil, the applicant has been apprehended. It is also evident that from the same memo, the car was taken on hire and the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. Moreover according to the ossification test prosecutrix was between 15 to 17 years of age and on this ground the applicant was entitled to grant bail moreover he is only 25 years of age and has been arrested on 08.01.2016.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and has submitted that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of incident. She, however, candidly admitted that offence of rape has not alleged against the applicant. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local surety of 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 28 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.822/2016* 05.02.2016 Shri Varun Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent-State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Bhagwan Singh s/o Parwat Singh has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.202/15 registered by Police Station Choti Gwaltoli, Indore for offence under Section 8/15-B, 29 of NDPS, Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that it was only a first time that the applicant has been implicated. And Counsel submitted that less than commercial quantity i.e.17 kg. 450 gm. doda choora has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant and the applicant has full chance of success in the trial, which is likely to take long time and Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 31.10.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and has submitted that the applicant was fully implicated in the matter. She has, however, candidly admitted that the quantity 29 involved was below the commercial quantity and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 30 Judge JYOTI Cr.R. No.1104/2012* 04.02.2016 Parties through their Counsel. List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.8623/2015* 04.02.2016 Shri Harish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the defect/s as pointed out by the Registry has been cured.

Registry to verify and list after two weeks.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.8344/2015* 04.02.2016 Shri Manish Ku. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the defect/s as pointed out by the Registry has been cured.

Registry to verify and list after two weeks.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.9380/2015* 04.02.2016 None for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

List after four weeks.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.1120/2016* 04.02.2016 Shri S.K. Mehra, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Mrs. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.

List in the next week.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.1274/16* 04.02.2016 32 Shri Manuraj Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Heard on admission and on I.A. No.1073/2016. Issue notice on both to the respondent on payment of PF 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 time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.

List after service of notice on the respondent.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.10643/2015* 04.02.2016 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the respondent prays for time to verify Visa document has produced by the applicant.

Last opportunity is granted to State. Looking to the urgency of the matter, list on 22.02.2016.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.11108/2015* 04.02.2016 Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. She is still praying for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.

Last opportunity is granted to the State. List in the next week. No further time shall be granted to the State.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.11804/2015* 04.02.2016 Shri Manoj Sahani and Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.

The application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.06/2016* 04.02.2016 Shri Brajandra Ku. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Raju Dhanak s/o Shri Panchhedilal has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.146/2015 registered by Police Station M.G. Road, Indore for offence under Section 363, 366, 370-a, 344, 346, 34 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that it was several other accused who were involved in sale of the prosecutrix, who was mentally deranged person. He submitted that applicant was only responsible for taking the prosecutrix by his Auto and no other allegation against the applicant is made out. He also claimed bail on the ground of parity since co-accused Laxman and others have been granted bail in M.Cr.C. No.199/2016. Counsel prayed for grant of 35 bail since the applicant has been arrested on 24.04.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, has pointed out that it is applicant who waylaid the prosecutrix when she was supposed to go her grand mother's house and taken by the applicant to one Laxman's house and she was sold in the State of Rajasthan. Counsel submitted that there is ample evidence on record and statement u/S.164 of Cr.P.C and memo u/S.27 of Evidence Act of co-accused indicates the active role of the present applicant. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application cannot be allowed since human trafficking is not to be encouraged. The application is, therefore, dismissed as bereft of merit.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI M.Cr.C. No.170/2016* 04.02.2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the 36 respondent/CBN.

Counsel for the respondent is still praying for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.

By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the respondent, otherwise the application shall be considered without the same on next occasion.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.210/2016* 04.02.2016 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Ajmer s/o Arjun Singh Nunia has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.313/15 registered by Police Station Kanwan, District-Dhar for offence under Section 363, 366-ka, 366, 344, 506, 376 (2) (dh), 376 (2) (jh,) of IPC and S. 6(da) of POCSO Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant himself is 20 years 37 old Bhil and a student and he has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix, who is allegedly 15 years of age. However, according to her own statement u/S.164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate she stated that she is 18 years of age, so also her father has also submitted that she is 18 years of age. Besides Counsel submitted that prosecutrix has turned hostile in Court and not supported the prosecution case and in this view the applicant is entitled for grant of bail having been arrested on 04.10.2015. Counsel prayed for grant of bail.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that according to scholar register prosecutrix's date of birth is 18.05.2000 and she confined 10 days in a room. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the young age of the applicant, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

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 like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his 38 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI M.Cr.C. No.275/2016* 04.02.2016 Shri Tushar Bhedasgaonkar, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the respondent prays for one last opportunity to verify the affidavit filed by the complainant.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 39 M.Cr.C. No.607/2016* 04.02.2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to verify whether the prosecutrix has been recovered.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.1097/2016* 04.02.2016 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant has produced a copy of four judgments in which accused has been acquitted.

Counsel for the respondent/State has drawn attention of this Court that there are three more cases still pending consideration.

At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application.

In view of the above, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. However liberty to file a fresh application after some time is granted to the applicant.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.392/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Siddarth Jain on behalf of Shri M. Bhachawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Tiwai, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent No.2/State.

Both the Counsel pray for time. List in the next Wednesday i.e.10.02.2016, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. Nos.639/2015 & 691/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Rajendra Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband.

Shri R.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the 41 respondent/wife.

Counsel for the respondent submits that not a single paisa has been paid towards the maintenance from 01.07.2015.

Subject to husband depositing half of the amount of arrears within four weeks from today.

Let both the petitions be admitted for final hearing.

Counsel submitted that one attempt can be made for reconciliation.

Both the parties are directed to remain present before this Court on 09.03.2016.

List on 09.03.2016.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.684/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri V.S. Parihar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous.

Therefore, the petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Certified copy as copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.766/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Ratnesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband.

Shri Shailendra Kumar Mehra, learned Counsel for the respondent/wife.

Counsel for respondent submits that not a single paisa has been paid towards the maintenance awarded by the trial Court on 21.05.2015 by the petitioner husband.

Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to verify.

List in the week commencing 22.02.2016.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.866/2015* 03.02.2016 43 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.L. Gwaliory, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Call for record and list for final disposal in the last week of February, 2016.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.967/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Rakash Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Umesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated the receipt of the trial Court which indicates that half of the amount directed by this Court on 12.08.2015 has been deposited in the trial Court.

Counsel for the respondent is directed to move a proper application before the trial Court for withdrawal of the said amount, which shall be allowed by the trial Court in accordance with the provisions of law.

Subject to which, list for final hearing in the first week of March, 2016 on Wednesday.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. Nos.978/2015 & 1260/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the petitioner wants to file his power on behalf of the respondent in Cr.R. No.1260/2015. He prays for two weeks time.

Subject to compliance, list after two weeks on any Wednesday.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.1044/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Anand Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent has disputed the 45 fact that amount of arrears of maintenance have been paid by the respondent.

Counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a copy of receipt deposited in the trial Court. He submitted that one attempt should also be made for reconciliation between the parties.

List on 24.02.2016 on that day parties shall remain present.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.1340/2015* 03.02.2016 None for the petitioner.

Respondent Smt. Vinita Chouhan is present in person and submits that she would like to change her Counsel.

List after two week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.3698/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the 46 respondent No.1/State.

None for the respondent No.2 though served. Last opportunity is granted to respondent No.2 to appear before this Court on 10.02.2016.

List on 10.02.2016.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. Nos.5837/2015 and 5838/2015* 03.02.2016 Petitioner No.3 Nitin Kumar Atal is present in person. (M.Cr.C. No.5838/2015) Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondents No.1 & 3./State.

Shri Gagan Parashar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.

Shri Jitendra Bohare, learned Counsel for the petitioner in M.Cr.C. No.5837/2015.

Counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged the fact that although there was a direction of this Court dated 15.04.2015 to produce the final report of the investigation in M.Cr.C. No.6393/2013 and others, however, the case diary is retained in the petitions and hence investigation agency is unable to come to any conclusion. She submitted that she would like to submit the report within four weeks from today if case diary is 47 allowed to be sent back.

Prayer being reasonable is accepted. Case diary be sent back immediately and the report in terms of the order dated 15.04.2015 be filed before this Court positively on the next occasion.

Till then it is directed that nothing coercive be done against the petitioners.

List in the 02nd week of March, 2016, as prayed. Certified copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.3228/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Harish Pawar and Shri MD Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.

All the Counsel agree to make their final submissions. Matter can be disposed of.

They pray for a fixed date in the matter. List on 11.02.2016, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 48 Cr.R. Nos.372/2015 & 574/2015* 03.02.2016 Ms. Kiran Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner wife.

None for the respondent, though served. List for final disposal in the week commencing 22.02.2016.

No further adjournment shall be granted to the respondent husband.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.870/2015* 03.02.2016 Shri Ajay Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Abhijeet Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Due to paucity of time the matter could not be concluded.

List on Tuesday i.e.10th of February, 2016.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. Nos.8602/2013 & 8928/2013* 03.02.2016 49 Parties through their Counsel. Both the Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter.

List on 17.02.2016, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.5054/2015* 02.02.2016 There is a PUD dated 20.11.2015 received from I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh wherein he has prayed for further time since 20 more witnesses remain to be examined and the accused is also in custody at Gwalior jail and he prays for four months time.

In view of the above, it is directed that trial shall be concluded positively within four months from today.

With the aforesaid observations and directions the PUD is disposed off.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.259/2015* 02.02.2016 50 There is a PUD dated 15.09.2015 received from IV Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone wherein it is submitted that this Court has in M.Cr.C. No.259/2015 directed that the trial should be concluded within two months. However the trial could not be concluded till 16.09.2015 and the Sessions Judge has prayed for grant for further two months time.

In view of the above, no action is called for since time has already lapsed today.

With the aforesaid observations and directions the PUD is disposed off.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Criminal Revision No.137/2014* 02.02.2016 Shri A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Petitioner Shyam is produced in proper custody by ASI. M.R. Kharari, DRP Line, Shajapur.

Heard on I.A. No.467/2016, which is an 51 application for grant of suspension of sentence of petitioner Shyam.

The warrants have been recalled on 26.11.2015.

In view of the above, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has moved an application earlier and petitioner had been granted suspension of sentence and bail. However he could not mark his presence on the date set by the Registry. Counsel prayed for grant of suspension of sentence as well as grant of bail stating that petitioner was a driver and could not be contacted and hence absence be condoned.

Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and stated that the petitioner was fully implicated in the matter. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, impugned order, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice, it is hereby allowed.

In view of the above, it is directed that the accused/petitioner 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 52 his appearance before this Court/Registry on 22nd March, 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 shall remain suspended till hearing of the petition.

At the moment, the Police Officer is directed to take back the petitioner Shyam in proper custody.

List on 22.03.2016.

Cc. as per rules.

(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI M.Cr.C. Nos.2087/2014, 2099/2014 & 6075/2014* 02.02.2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent is directed to seek instructions whether he wishes to appear in third 53 petition i.e. M.Cr.C. No.6075/2014 also.

List after two weeks for final disposal.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.10761/2015* 02.02.2016 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the petitioner/State.

Heard on admission also on I.A. No.8965/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay.

Considering the nature of the application is taken up for hearing.

By this present application under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. the petitioner/State is praying for grant of leave to file appeal.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that there is ample evidence on record, despite which the accused respondents have been acquitted. Counsel stated that she has full chance of success in the trial. She however candidly admitted that appeal is barred by 73 days and the delay be condoned and leave be granted.

Counsel has pointed to para 11 of the impugned judgment to indicate that the complainant had received injuries which fully supported the prosecution case, despite which trial Court has not believed the prosecution. Counsel submitted that on this ground alone leave be granted to file appeal. Considering the impugned judgment I find that it is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is proper scrutinizing of evidence in para 14 & 15 of the impugned judgment. Moreover the learned Judge of the trial Court has also observed that there was admission by Dhaanlal that accused had admitted their guilt, however, no documents were produced in this regard and disputed electronic speaker which was put up for repairing in the shop of the complainant has not been produced in evidence. Moreover there is discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses i.e. PW.3 Pappu, PW.4 Harish & PW.5 Vikas. The learned Judge of the trial Court has categorically held that there is no damage caused to the complainant and there was no damage Panchnama available on record, in this light the damage caused to the complainant could not be assessed, and there is no concrete proof regarding the damage caused to the complainant. In this light no fault can be found in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. In view of this fact, no ground arises for 55 grant of leave to the petitioner. Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused. The evidence in order to sustain conviction must be unshakable and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court has time and again warned that whenever there is a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused, it should not be set aside merely because another view of the matter is possible. I have no hesitation in concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

The application is also delayed by 73 days and there are no proper explanation regarding the delay caused in filing this application. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently the application for leave to file appeal is dismissed as being without merit and barred by limitation also.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.R. No.1535/2015* 02.02.2016 Shri Manish Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

M.S. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

There is no handwriting expert report and case diary is also not available.

In view of the above, Counsel for the State is directed to produce the same within a period of two weeks from today.

List after two weeks.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.841/2016* 02.02.2016 Shri K.S. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Smt. Sushila w/o Babulal Prajapat has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.652/15 registered by Police Station Hatpipliya, District Dewas for offence under Section 304-B, 34 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant is 51 years of age and is a mentally disturbed person and the 57 certificate has been disbelieved by the trial Court unnecessarily. Whereas deceased daughter-in-law and the applicant were living separately and applicant has falsely roped in the case. Counsel submitted that there is no incriminating evidence available on record against the applicant and prayed for grant of bail since she has been arrested on 17.12.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State per contra submitted that on previous occasion the applicant and her daughter-in-law were engaged in dispute after which daughter-in-law has committed suicide and there is no doubt regarding the implication of the applicant. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for her appearance before the concerned Trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court 58 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI M.Cr.C. Nos.1028/ 2016 & 856/2016* 02.02.2016 Shri Vinay Puranik and Ms. Sadhna Pathak, learned Counsel for the applicants.

M.S. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicants prays for time. List after two week analogously.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 59 M.Cr.C. No.1042/2016* 02.02.2016 Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Vikas s/o Nanuram Balai has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.337/15 registered by Police Station Hatpipalya, District Dewas for offence under Section 406, 417, 420 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and the respondents are making capital out of fact that four crimes were registered against the applicant on the same day and he has been victimized as habitual offender. He submitted that bail was granted to the applicant earlier and he has been arrested on 60 07.07.2015 and he prayed for grant of bail. More so in M.Cr.C. Nos.11223/2015 & 11755/2015 this Court was considered the fact granting bail to the applicant.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that recovery of the tractor/trolley from the applicant and there is no substance argument put forth by Counsel. She has, however, unable to prove granting bail of the accused in other cases. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

By way of abundant caution, 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 61 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.515/2016* 02.02.2016 Shri I. Ansari, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Bhanvar Singh has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.566/15 registered by Police Station Sardarpur, District Dhar, for offence under Section 376, 376(2) (F), 450 and 506 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was 40 years female and a relative to the accused applicant and due to agricultural dispute the applicant has 62 been falsely implicated. Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 30.11.2015 and he has full chance of success in the trial, which is likely to take long time.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and has submitted that the prosecutrix has remained steadfast in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and there is doubt about implication of the applicant. She has, however, unable to explain the delay in filing the FIR by two days satisfactorily and she prayed for dismissal of the application.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI M.Cr.C. No.638/2016* 02.02.2016 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant.

M.S. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the State has vehemently urged the fact that the recovery of gun has been made from the present applicant.

After arguing the matter for some time Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.

The application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 64 Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.812/2016* 02.02.2016 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicants.

M.S. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the State is directed to place the statement of the prosecutrix u/S.164 of Cr.P.C. before this Court.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.513/2015* 01.02.2016 Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for the appellants. He prays for time.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.646/2016* 65 01.02.2016 Shri Prakash Patel, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Sharukh @ Junnu s/o Aziz Shah has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.1095/2015 registered by Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (1) (n) of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that applicant himself is 22 years of age and it was a case of affair of heart and applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Moreover Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was more than 17 years of age and on the verge attaining the majority and she lived with the applicant more than seven days and he submitted that applicant was entitled for grant of bail. Counsel submitted that entire family is suffering due to his arrest and he is a young boy and prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 15.10.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.06.1998 66 and she is not major and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI 67 M.Cr.C. No.647/2016 * 01.02.2016 Shri PK Shukla and Shri MS Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Deepak s/o Motilal has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.302/2015 registered by Police Station Sadar Bazar, Indore for offence under Section 379 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant has been arrested and five motor cycles have been foisted on recovery on the applicant, which is contrary to the 68 fact of the case and prior case were listed that is why applicant has been implicated. Hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant is only 20 years of age and has been arrested on 18.09.2015 and an agriculturist.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and there are five other cases listed against him. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

This fact has vehemently disputed by Counsel for the applicant stating that merely because applicant was a prior offender he was being victimized and Counsel prayed that the applicant be allowed.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and the fact that the applicant is a young person and is likely to deteriorate in custody, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local sureties of like amount to the 69 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No. 674/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of 70 the Cr.P.C. applicant Prakash s/o Magilal Bavri has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.07/2016 registered by Police Station Pipliyamandi, District Mandsaur for offence under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that contraband liquor weighing 80 bulk liters were recovered from the shop of the applicant and not for his physical possession. Counsel submitted that if at all the first attempt by the applicant and Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 06.01.2016 and he has full chance of success in the trial which is likely to take long time.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant has involved in another State required sale and single case for offence under Sections 323, 294 and 506 recorded against him. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a 71 sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two local sureties of 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.765/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri Nitendra Vajpayee, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 72 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Soniya D/o Laxmanrao has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.295/2015 registered by Police Station Chimanganj, District Ujjain for offence under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that a false case has been registered against the applicant and the applicant can not be convicted for offence u/S.376 of IPC. Moreover even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that main accused Sonu was alleged to have committed rape and has been granted bail by the trial Court itself. Moreover Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was more than 17 years of age and was married to Sonu. Hence he prayed for grant of bail since the applicant is a lady, aged 26 years and has been arrested on 14.10.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant was fully implicated in the matter and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and the fact that the applicant is a young lady, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the 73 interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge JYOTI W.P. No.730/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri LC Patne, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.

List tomorrow i.e. on 02.02.2016, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.781/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Bhupendra s/o Narayana Jat has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.132/2015 registered by Police Station Barwani for offence under Sections 353, 332, 427 & 186 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that since the applicant Bhupendra works for Bajrang Dal and had gone to assist one colleague and the Police Officers have treated him with cruelty and assaulted him and made false case for offence under Sections 353, 332, 427 & 186 of IPC. Counsel submitted that the applicant is 24 years of age and a labourer and entire family is suffering since no source of livelihood and Counsel prayed for grant of 75 bail since he has been arrested on 28.12.2015.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that there are six criminal cases recorded against the applicant. She, however, candidly admitted that applicant belongs to the Bajrang Dal and was only 24 years of age and she prayed for dismissal of the application.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.891/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. She is directed to verify criminal antecedents as well as medical report regarding son and the applicant, filed along with the application.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No. 900/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the 77 respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Smt. Kusum w/o Shri Santosh Verma has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.597/2016 registered by Police Station Excise Department Circle Bhoi Mohalla, Indore for offence under Section 34(1)A(2) of 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 a lady aged 32 years and has small children dependent upon her. Whereas according to the prosecution allegations 57.6 bulk liters of country made liquor has been seized from the conscious possession of the applicant. Counsel has submitted that there is no responsible person at home to look after for children. Hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 13.01.2016 and she has full chance of success in the trial, which is likely to take long time.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that she has fully implicated in the matter. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and the fact that the applicant is a lady, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on her furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for her 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No. 906/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Rameshwar s/o Chabbulal Jaiswal has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.543/2015 registered by Police Station Bhikangaon, District Khargone for offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and u/S.3/181 & 141/196 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that if at all this is the first attempt of the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that 60 bulk liters of country made liquor has been seized from the conscious possession of the applicant. Hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 31.12.2015 and he has full chance of success in the trial.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that 60 bulk liters of liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant which is little above the commercial quantity as prescribed under the provisions of law and she prayed for dismissal of the application.

However, stringent measures need to be 80 imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local sureties of 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.859/2016* 01.02.2016 Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent/State.

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Mukesh s/o Kellash has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.14/2016 registered by Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that only 1 kg. ganja has been seized from the conscious possession of the applicant and he is an agricultural labourer and has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel submitted that there is no criminal case recorded against him and prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 06.01.2016 and he has full chance of success in the trial, which is likely to take long time.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant. She, however, candidly admitted that there is no criminal record against the applicant according to report received from the Police Station Rajendra Nagar and she prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegation and the fact that the applicant is only 28 years of age, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is hereby allowed.

However, stringent measures need to be 82 imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of 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.

Cc. as per rules.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 83 No. 09.02.2016 Shri Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State.

(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Uttam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2016