Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 26 September, 2017
M.Cr.C. No. 10529/2017
(Mithlesh Vs State of M.P.)
26/09/2017
Shri P.S. Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Perused the case diary.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 72/2010 registered at Police Station Gohad Chowk District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has falsely implicated in the crime. It is submitted that he went to Delhi for treatment of his father therefore he could not attend the court and his bail bond has been forfeited. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. Under such circumstance, it is prayed that applicant be released on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that applicant was absent from 26/11/2015 and due to which trial of the case has been delayed, no case for grant of bail is made out.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in M.Cr.C. No. 10529/2017 (Mithlesh Vs State of M.P.) the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2.The applicant will cooperate in the trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court.
4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) JUDGE Prachi