Madhya Pradesh High Court
Visual Securas Ltd. Through Rajesh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2015
M.Cr.C. No. 5440 / 2015
21/07/2015
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Government
Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station Nahargarh District Mandsaur in Crime No.74/2015 under section 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Prosecution story in brief are that on 06/04/2015, on source information, police at Police Station Nahargarh arrested the present applicant who was carrying poppy straw in a gunny bag on his head. He was followed by another person who was also carrying poppy straw on his head in a gunny bag. However when the present applicant was caught, the person who was following him threw the bag on the ground and fled away and he could not be arrested. In the seizure memo, total 53 kgs of poppy straw was seized, however, as per the seizure memo 25 kgs of poppy straw was seized from the possession of the present applicant and 28 kgs of poppy straw was seized from another bag that was thrown by the co-accused on the ground.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate opposes the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the seizure memo, only 25 kgs of poppy straw was seized from the possession of the present applicant. Though the joint seizure memo was made, seizure memo specifically mentions that the present applicant was carrying only 25 kgs of poppy straw and that is non commercial quantity.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. After going through the case diary and taking into consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case and other material available, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant - Tulsiram S/o Bherusingh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
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 am to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and making 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.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No. 287 / 2015 21/07/2015 List in the next week.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr. C. No.5182/2015 21/07/2015 List in the next week.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr. C. No. 533/2014 21/07/2015 Ms. Sudha Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to explore the possibility of placing the matter before the forth coming Lok Adalat.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No. 908 / 2014 21/07/2015 As prayed by the counsel for the petitioner, the matter may be listed on next Monday i.e. on 27/07/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr. C. No. 6303/2015 21/07/2015 As prayed by the counsel for the applicant, the matter may be listed on Friday i.e. on 24/07/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr. C. No. 5145/2015 21/07/2015 As prayed by the counsel for the applicant, the matter may be listed on next Monday i.e. on 27/07/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No. 692 / 2014 21/07/2015 As prayed by the counsel for the petitioner, the matter may be listed on 23/07/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.4976/2015 21/07/2015 List on 28/07/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.3122/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri. M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the respondent/ State.
rd List in the week commencing 3 of August, 2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.4397/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Balendu Dwivedi Pandel, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri. M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the respondent/ State.
Case diary is not available.
List after a week.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.4914/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. Shri. M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the respondent/ State.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to implead the complainant as respondent No.2. He is directed to file appropriate application in this regard.
Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that he his appearing in this case today only and seeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed, he is directed to file reply within two weeks.
Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to supply all the copies to the counsel for the complainant.
In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, till the next date of hearing the proceedings before the Court of Judicial Magistrate under criminal case no.9928/2015 shall remain stayed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.6225/2015 21/07/2015 As prayed for, this matter may be listed on 23/07/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No. 387 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
This revision is filed against the framing of charge sheet. Case diary is not available today. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file the entire copies of the charge sheet.
List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No. 405 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
The report of probation officer is not available today. Learned Counsel for the respondent / State is directed to call the report positively on the next date of hearing.
List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. A. No.484 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Yogesh Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on the point of admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. List along with connected matter of appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in sessions trial no.526/2013 dated 04/02/2015.
On payment of process fee within one week, issue notices to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, returnable within four weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No. 670 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Pradeep Karole, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Reserved for final order.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.674/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to verify whether any revision is filed against the order dated 20/05/2015, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Indore.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.675/2015 21/07/2015 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Reserved for final order.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.688/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Saiyad Asif Ali Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within one week; returnable within four weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.689/2015 21/07/2015 List along with Cr.R. No.277/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.690/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Padmanabh Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file appropriate application to convert this criminal revision into the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Prayer allowed, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application within one week.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.700/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice on IA. 4509/15 as also on main application under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, to the respondents on payment of process fee within one week; returnable within four weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.704/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No.705/2015 21/07/2015 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. He is directed to file entire copies of charge sheet.
List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5204 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary including marg statement is available on record.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station Khudel District Indore in Crime No.75/15 under section 498(A) and 304-B of IPC. According to the prosecution story, the deceased was married to the present applicant on 28/01/12. On the intervening night of 18/02/2015 & 19/02/2015 she committed suicide by hanging herself from roof. She was found hanging at 4.15 am. She was taken to hospital there she was declared brought dead. Subsequently, marg was registered and finally crime was registered by the police station Khudel, District Indore.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate opposes the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first time statement of family of the deceased was recorded on 28/02/2015, almost after 10 days of the incident. Whole of the family members including parents of the deceased reached at the residence of the present applicant at about 6'O' clock in the morning when they were informed about the death of the deceased.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. After perusing the case diary and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant Naveen Khichi S/o Radheshyam Khichi shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5372 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the application.
Prayer allowed.
Application is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5525 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the application.
Prayer allowed.
Application is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5440 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station Nahargarh District Mandsaur in Crime No.74/2015 under section 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Prosecution story in brief are that on 06/04/2015, on source information, police at Police Station Nahargarh arrested the present applicant who was carrying poppy straw in a gunny bag on his head. He was followed by another person who was also carrying poppy straw on his head in a gunny bag. However when the present applicant was caught, the person who was following him threw the bag on the ground and fled away and he could not be arrested. In the seizure memo, total 53 kgs of poppy straw was seized, however, as per the seizure memo 25 kgs of poppy straw was seized from the possession of the present applicant and 28 kgs of poppy straw was seized from another bag that was thrown by the co-accused on the ground.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate opposes the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the seizure memo, only 25 kgs of poppy straw was seized from the possession of the present applicant. Though the joint seizure memo was made, seizure memo specifically mentions that the present applicant was carrying only 25 kgs of poppy straw and that is non commercial quantity.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. After going through the case diary and taking into consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case and other material available, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant - Tulsiram S/o Bherusingh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
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 am to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and making 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.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5655 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station Pachore District Rajgarh in Crime No.333/2015 under section 363, 366, 366(A) of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix is mentally affected, she left her house and it is alleged that the present applicant met her and took her on his motor cycle and he promised that he would leave her at her matrimonial house. However, he took her to his village and kept her in his house and left for some work and after coming back there after two days, he left the prosecutrix at her matrimonial house. In the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has not alleged about rape committed on her by the present applicant.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate opposes the bail application.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. After perusing the case diary and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant Bahadur Singh S/o Tulsiram Gurjar shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5671 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State submits that in this case charge sheet has been filed. As per the list of documents, dying declaration was recorded and the same is not available in case diary. Counsel seeks time to call dying declaration of the deceased.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5962 / 2015 21/07/2015 List along with the connected matter M.Cr.C. No.5850/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 6039 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station Gogawa District Khargone in Crime No.220/2015 under section 376 of IPC and 3 / 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
According to the prosecution, the present applicant and the prosecutrix were having relationship for the last one year. The prosecutrix became pregnant and further alleged that a girl was born to her, while she went to nearby jungle to answer the call of nature and in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she has stated that a girl child was born to her in jungle and she left the child in jungle and came back home. While recording her statement under Section 164, the concerned Court recorded her age as 20 years, however, as per the scholar register, she was slightly above 17 years of age at the time of incident.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate opposes the bail application.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that she was a consenting party and they belong to same community.
After perusing the case diary and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant Deelep S/o Ramu Banjara shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 6068 / 2015 21/07/2015 Case diary is not available.
List on this Friday i.e. on 24/07/2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 6103 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Case diary is available on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The applicant was arrested by the Police Station - Mhow District - Indore in Crime No.325/2015 under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act for keeping in his possession 63 bulk liters of contra band country liquor.
Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate opposes the bail application. Arguments heard, case diary perused. After going through the case diary and taking into consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case and other material available, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant Jitendra S/o Ramavatar Tiwari shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 6169 / 2015 21/07/2015 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Case diary is not available.
List in the next week.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. M. Shandilya, learned PL for the respondent /State. Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - Baghana District - Neemuch in Crime No.226/2007 under sections 8/15, 29 and 25 of NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, one quintal and 60 k.g. of Poppy Husk was recovered from the vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-1- HB-4560. It is stated that the vehicle is registered in the name of Anjana Bank. However, it is alleged that the vehicle was sold to three other persons on the basis of the agreement to sale and finally the vehicle was sold to the present applicant again on the basis of agreement to sale.
Learned PL opposes the bail application. Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that this applicant was arrested in crime under section 25 of the Arms Act and later on, he was implicated in the present case. The agreement to sale in his favour is a forged document.
After going through the case diary and taking into consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case and other material available, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant - Prakash Vishnoi Son of Raju @ Kaluram shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lacks) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
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 am to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and making 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.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge FORMAT BAIL [438] 07.10.2014 Shri--------, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri --------, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
Case diary is available.
The present applicant apprehends his arrest by the Police Station----District ----in connection with Crime No.----for the offence punishable under section-----of IPC.
According to the prosecution case, when the prosecutrix was watching T.V. in the residence of her friend Maya Jaiswal. Her brother (present applicant) sent Maya Jaiswal to water the plant in the garden, thereafter he committed rape with the prosecutrix. Learned Government Advocate opposes the bail application on the ground that the prosecutrix is only 16 years of age. According to the school record, her date of birth is 15.06.1998. However, as per the ossification test, she was 13-18 years.
Arguments heard, perused the case diary. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that there was a consensual sexual intercourse between the applicant and the prosecutrix. The incident occurred in the month of January 2014, only when she got pregnant, the matter was reported.
Taking various evidence available regarding the age of the prosecutrix and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant ------shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may be, with the following conditions:-
(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 or to any police officer.
(iii) that he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge Kafeel FORMAT BAIL [439] 07.10.2014 Shri--------, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri --------, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station ------ District-----in Crime No.----- under section
-----of IPC.
According to the prosecution, the present applicant committed unnatural sexual act with his wife/informant forcibly. It is alleged that he inserted sticks into private parts of his wife and committed unnatural offence.
Learned Government Advocate opposes the bail application.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the present applicant is falsely implicated in this case. He is not committed any alleged unnatural sexual act with his wife. Neither he committed any act, sufficient to form ingredients of offence under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
After perusing the case diary and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant ------shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge Kafeel