Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govindi Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 31 January, 2017
1 Cr.R.No.52/2017
Govindi Pal Vs. State of M.P.
31.01.2017
Shri Shamshad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, P.P. for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Revision is admitted for final hearing. Records of both the courts below have been received. Also heard on I.A.No. 523 of 2017 filed on behalf of the applicant under section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail.
The applicant has filed this Cr.Revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Second Additional Judge, Gwalior in Cr.Appeal No.6400522 of 2016 confirming the judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Gwalior in Cr.Case No.37 of 2012 convicting the accused under 327 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation mentioned in the impugned judgment.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty granted to him but he has been in custody since the date of his arrest. Disposal of this revision will take time. On these grounds, he has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Learned PP for the respondent-State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
Considering the period of the custody and the period of sentence awarded to the applicant-accused, this application is allowed. On deposit of fine, execution of jail sentence of the applicant shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he be released on bail, on his furnishing a 2 Cr.R.No.52/2017 personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Pr.Registrar of this Court on 20.03.2017 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by him in this regard.
I.A.No.523 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let this revision be listed for final hearing in due course.
CC as per rules.
(D.K. Paliwal) Judge van 3 Cr.R.No.52/2017 Cr.A.107/2016 Bhukan Rajak vs. State of M.P. 05.05.2016 Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A. No.846/2016 filed by the appellant/accused under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the Court of Fifth Additional Session Judge, Morena in S.S.T. No.68/2014 vide judgment dated 13.01.2016 convicting him under section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act and under Section 456 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 4 years along with fine of Rs.2000/- and one year RI along with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with default stipulations mentioned in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant/accused are not just and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The alleged incident took place at 11.00 PM on 18.07.2014 whereas the FIR (Ex-P/1) was lodged on the next day i.e. on 19.07.2014 at 8.15 PM, when the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is near about 1 KM as mentioned in the FIR. No satisfactory explanation for delay in lodging the report has been tendered on behalf of the prosecution. The said circumstances indicate that the FIR was lodged by the family members of the prosecutrix after consultation in a pre-planned manner to implicate the appellant/accused in this case because in para 12 of the statement of PW/2, it has come on record that there 4 Cr.R.No.52/2017 were stand relation with the father of the victim and the appellant/accused for a long period before the happening of the alleged incident. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant/accused was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Moreover, he has been in custody since 13.01.2016. Considering the period of sentence awarded to the appellant/accused and the period of sentence served by him, the suspension of jail sentence be granted to the appellant/accused.
Learned PL opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant- accused has prayed for rejection of the application.
Heard the arguments of both the parties. On perusal of the FIR (Ex-P/1) and the statement of the victim (PW/2), the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/accused appear to be sound. Moreover, the appellant/accused had been on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. It is directed that execution of jail sentence of the appellant-accused shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 06.09.2016 and thereafter on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.
I.A.No.846/2016 stands disposed of. The appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
CC as per rules.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge 5 Cr.R.No.52/2017 van M.Cr.C.No.5123/2016 Devendra vs. State of M.P. 05.05.2016 Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for the applicant/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. Case diary is not available, but the copy of charge sheet is available for perusal.
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.62/2016 registered at Police Station Daboh, Distt. Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the allegations made against the applicant/accused are totally false and concocted. Moreover, the offence under Section 452 of IPC is not made out in this case because there is no allegation against the applicant/accused that when he entered the house of the complainant-Smt. Preeti, he was having any weapon to assault or to cause injury or wrongful restraint. In the said circumstances, at the most, the offence under Section 451 of IPC is made out along with other offences. The alleged offences are not punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years and are triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, the applicant/accused be granted bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
Heard the arguments of both the parties. On perusal of the contents of the FIR and the case diary evidence, the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused appear to be convincing. Therefore, allowing the application, it is directed that the applicant-accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 6 Cr.R.No.52/2017 Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial Court.
A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.
Certified copy as per rules.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.5133/2016 05.05.2016 None for the applicant/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. For the respondent/State. Case diary is not available.
The respondent/State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.
List after a week.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.258/2016 05.05.2016 Shri A.P.S. Tomar, Advocate for the applicant/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. For the respondent/State. Counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment for arguments submitting that the dispute is going to be settled between the parties before the trial Court. Hence, list the case 7 Cr.R.No.52/2017 after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.A.No.268/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Shahrukh Alam, Advocate for the appellant/accused. Heard on the question of admission. The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. On payment of process fee within seven days by registered AD as well as by ordinary mode, notice for final hearing be issued to the respondent and be made returnable within six weeks.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.273/2016 05.05.2016 Shri M.L. Yadav, Advocate for the applicants/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. In compliance of the earlier order dated 31.03.2016, the report of probationary officer has not been received.
The respondent/State is directed to make available the report positively on the next date of hearing.
List after a week.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.275/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Anant Bansal, Advocate is present on behalf of Shri 8 Cr.R.No.52/2017 A.R. Shivhare, Advocate for the applicants/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. The applicants are directed to file copy of charge sheet within four weeks. List thereafter.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.307/2016 05.05.2016 Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. The present counsel for the applicants is not prepared for arguments and seeks adjournment. Hence, the case is adjourned.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.352/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Jagdish Singh, Advocate for the applicants/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. The present counsel for the applicants is not prepared for arguments and seeks adjournment.
List the case after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.354/2016 05.05.2016 9 Cr.R.No.52/2017 Shri Deepak Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicants/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. The applicants are directed to file copy of charge sheet within four weeks.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.A.No.377/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Rishikesh Bohre, Advocate for the appellant/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. List after ensuing summer vacation for consideration of I.A.No.3281/2016.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.377/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Anand Purohit, Advocate for the applicant/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. The present counsel for the applicant is not prepared for arguments and seeks adjournment.
List the case after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.384/2016 10 Cr.R.No.52/2017 05.05.2016 Shri M.L. yadav, Advocate for the applicant/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. The present counsel for the applicant is not prepared for arguments and seeks adjournment.
List the case after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.3787/2015 05.05.2016 Shri Kuldeep Thapak, Advocate for the petitioners/accused.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, P.P. for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the respondent No.2/complainant.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after investigation the charge sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Hence, the petitioners are directed to file copy of charge sheet within two weeks.
The petitioners are further directed to supply copy of memo of petition along with annexures to the respondent No.2 within a week.
This petition be listed after ensuing summer vacation on 28.06.2016 along with M.Cr.C.No.3794/2015.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.3923/2015 05.05.2016 Shri Mukesh Kulshrestha, Advocate for the 11 Cr.R.No.52/2017 petitioners/accused.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, P.P. for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is not prepared for arguments and seeks adjournment to file order sheets of the trial Court proceedings. The circumstance indicates that the petitioners have no interest in early disposal of this petition. Hence, it be listed after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.4106/2015 05.05.2016 Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. On perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the validity and legality of the three orders dated 23.01.2015, 25.03.2015 and 24.02.2015 have been challenged in this petition. Now the question that arises for consideration is that how this petition is maintainable against the three orders simultaneously.
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time to argue on the question of maintainability of this petition.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.5115/16 Ramu alias Ramkishan vs. State of M.P. 05.05.2016 12 Cr.R.No.52/2017 Shri Prasun Maheshwari, Advocate for the applicant/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. Case diary is available and after investigation the charge sheet was filed on 10.03.2016.
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.100/2015 registered at Police Station Tighra, Distt. Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC, under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of his criminal background, but the allegations made against him are totally false and concocted. He was arrested from his house and the alleged recovery of a knife is also concocted. Learned counsel further contends that the applicant/accused has been in custody since 27.12.2015. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, he be granted bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
Heard the arguments of both the parties. As per the prosecution story, the Police Station Tighra received information from an informer at 11.00 PM on 27.12.2015 that a few miscreants were planning to commit dacoity near Sada building. After that the police party reached there and five persons who were planning to commit dacoity in the house of Ballu Gurjar, resident of Sojana were arrested by the police near Sada building. The applicant/accused was also arrested having a knife in his possession. After investigation the charge sheet has already been filed.
Conspiring the allegations and the period of custody, the 13 Cr.R.No.52/2017 application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant-accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial Court.
A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.
Certified copy as per rules.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.A.107/2016 Bhukan Rajak vs. State of M.P. 05.05.2016 Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant/accused.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A. No.846/2016 filed by the appellant/accused under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the Court of Fifth Additional Session Judge, Morena in S.S.T. No.68/2014 vide judgment dated 13.01.2016 convicting him under section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act and under Section 456 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 4 years along with fine of Rs.2000/- and one year RI along with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with default stipulations mentioned in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant/accused are not just and proper appreciation of the evidence. The alleged incident took place at 11.00 PM on 14 Cr.R.No.52/2017 18.07.2014 whereas the FIR (Ex-P/1) was lodged on the next day i.e. on 19.07.2014 at 8.15 PM whereas the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is near about 1 KM as mentioned in the FIR. No explanation for delay in lodging the report has been tendered on behalf of the prosecution. The said circumstances indicate that the FIR was lodged by the family members of the prosecutrix after consultation in a pre- planned manner to implicate the appellant/accused in this case because in para 12 of the statement of PW/2, it has come on record that there were stand relation with the father of the victim and the appellant/accused for a long period before the happening of the alleged incident. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant/accused was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Moreover, he has been in custody since 13.01.2016. Considering the period of sentence awarded to the appellant/accused and the period of sentence served by him, the suspension of jail sentence be granted to the appellant/accused.
Learned PL opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant- accused has prayed for rejection of the application.
Heard the arguments of both the parties. On perusal of the FIR (Ex-P/1) and the statement of the victim (PW/2), the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/accused appear to be sound. Moreover, the appellant/accused had been on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. It is directed that execution of jail sentence of the appellant-accused shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the 15 Cr.R.No.52/2017 like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before CJM Morena on 06.09.2016 and thereafter on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by that court in this regard.
In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the C.J.M, Morena, then the said C.J.M shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.
I.A.No.846 of 2016 stands disposed of. List the appeal for final hearing in due course. CC as per rules.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.1718/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Ravindra Singh, Advocate for the applicant/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. Case diary is available, but the counsel for the applicant/accused seeks adjournment for arguments without any basis.
On the earlier date i.e. 16.02.2016, the case diary was available but the adjournment was sought on behalf of the applicant/accused without any cause. The said circumstance indicates that either the applicant/accused is not interested in early disposal of this petition or he is deliberately avoiding the disposal of the same. Hence, it be listed after ensuing summer vacation.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.3786/2016 Prashant alias Basu Chauhan vs. State of M.P. 05.05.2016 16 Cr.R.No.52/2017 Shri D.R. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. For the respondent/State. Case diary is available.
This is the repeat bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.949/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 427, 457, 380, 201 of IPC. The first application filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.13357/2015.
Heard the arguments of both the parties. No change of circumstances has been found to grant bail to the applicant/accused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant/accused seeks permission to withdraw this application. Hence, the application is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.4549/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Ravindra Singh, Advocate for the applicant/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. For the respondent/State. Case diary is not available.
The respondent/State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.
List next week.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.5101/2016 05.05.2016 Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant/accused.
17 Cr.R.No.52/2017Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. For the respondent/State. Case diary is not available.
The respondent/State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.
List next week.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van E.P.5/2014 05.05.2016 Shri Mahesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.V. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Suresh Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.4. None for the remaining respondents. The petitioner-Radhe Shyam Dhakad is not present for the remaining cross-examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would positively keep present the petitioner for the remaining cross- examination on the next date of hearing.
List on 07.07.2016.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.A.No.241/2008 05.05.2016 Shri R.K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellants/accused. Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. In compliance of the order dated 29.03.2016, the appellants have not appeared before the Court. Hence, warrants of arrest be issued against them for securing their presence before this Court on 07.07.2016.
List on 07.07.2016.
18 Cr.R.No.52/2017(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van Cr.R.No.521/2010 05.05.2016 Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for the applicants No.1- Bhaiyyan and No.4-Maithali alias Lalla.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, P.L. for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.4-Maithali alias Lalla has already passed away. Hence, the applicants are directed to file an appropriate application for deleting the name of the applicant No.4 from the cause title of the revision memo.
The applicant No.1 has not appeared before the Court in compliance of the earlier orders. Therefore, a warrant of arrest be issued against him for securing his presence before this Court on 12.07.2016.
List on 12.07.2016.
(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van