Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Firoj Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2021

Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      M.Cr.C. No. 38393 / 2021
                  (Firoj Tigala Vs. State of M.P.)
                                                                          1

Jabalpur, Dated :08 / 09 / 2021
       None for the applicant.
       None for the respondent-State.

Case diary is available.

In the absence of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is considered on the basis of case dairy and averments made by the applicant in his petition.

This is second application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Firoj Tigala was arrested on 07.12.2020 in Crime No.495/2014 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 294, 323, 332, 353, 171, 427, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

It appears from the record that the applicant is facing trial in S.T. No. 64/2015 arising out from the charge-sheet filed by the police after investigation of Crime No. 495/2014 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 294, 323, 332, 353, 171, 427, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Earlier, the applicant was enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.13816/2014, but during trial of the case on 18.08.2020 applicant did not appear before the trial Court, so the learned trial Court forfeited the bail bond of applicant. On 21.01.2020 trial Court declared the applicant absconder and issued perpetual arrest warrant against the applicant for securing his presence before the Court. In compliance of that warrant, police arrested the applicant on 07.12.2020 and produced him before the trial Court. On that, learned trial Court sent him into judicial custody and since then the applicant is in judicial custody. Thereafter, applicant filed bail application before the trial Court, which was rejected.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38393 / 2021 (Firoj Tigala Vs. State of M.P.) 2 The applicant has averred in his application that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Due to some unavoidable circumstance, the applicant could not appear before the trial Court on the date fixed for his appearance. The applicant has been in custody since 07.12.2020 and the trial is still pending, so he be released on bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 07.12.2020, so he learnt the lesson and is unlikely to hinder the progress of the trial again, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.

Learned trial Court is free to forfeit such amount from his personal bond and bail bond as may be deemed fit after following the due procedure.

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;
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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
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 prior permission of the trial Court.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.


                                                         (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe                                                         Judge

          Digitally signed
          by NAVEEN
          KUMAR
          SARATHE
          Date: 2021.09.08
          15:55:26 +05'30'