Union Of India, C.B.N. vs Devram on 30 October, 2015

[Cites 97, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Union Of India, C.B.N. vs Devram on 30 October, 2015

M.Cr.C. No.9664/2015
30.10.2015
None for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9693/2015
30.10.2015
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, counsel for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the State seeks time to argue the matter, as he

wants to seek instructions from the Investigating Officer.

List on 05.11.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.9694/2015
30.10.2015
None for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.

List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9706/2015
30.10.2015
None for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.

List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.5634/2015
30.10.2015
This matter is listed today for disposal of PUD dated

20.10.2015 received from the Additional Sessions Judge,

Indore in Sessions Trial No.949/2014, State of MP Vs.

Yogesh.

As per the PUD, this Court ordered that trial should be

concluded within three months. However, as per the PUD,

statements of four more prosecution witnesses are to be

recorded. Hence, further time is sought for conclusion of

trial.

Accordingly, it is directed that the trial Court should

dispose of the matter within next four months after receiving

certified copy of this order.

In view of the aforesaid, PUD stands disposed of.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.839/1997
30.10.2015
Appellants - Chhaganlal and Dayaram are present

today before the Court in person.

Heard on I.A. No.6197/2015.

Appellants submit that they wish to engage Shri OP

Solanki as their lawyer. They also submit that all the

appellants are members of the same family and they will all

engage the same lawyer. It is further averted in the

application that the Senior Counsel Shri Jai Singh has died.

Accordingly, the appellants are permitted to engage a

new lawyer Shri OP Solanki.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
Cr.A. No.980/2006
30.10.2015
Issue fresh non-bailable warrant against the present

appellant, returnable for 16.02.2016.

Office is directed to take necessary steps for engaging a

Lawyer through High Court Legal Services Authority for

disposal of this appeal on merit.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.890/2007
30.10.2015
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant/CBN.

Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent Dayaram submits that the

respondent is under custody in District Jail, Mandsaur.

Office is directed to issue a production warrant for

appearance of the respondent - Dayaram before this Court on

02.12.2015.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8773/2015
29.10.2015

Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is first 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 - Suthliya, District - Rajgarh in Crime No.173/2014

under sections 457 and 435 of IPC and under section 3/4 of

Lok Sampathi Ko Nuksani Ka Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1984.

It is alleged that the present applicant alongwith the
other co-accused was burning the insulated copper wire

which they stolen from Biaora. The total weight of the wire

was about 44 kg and value of which was stated to be

Rs.26,000/-.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail

application.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that bail to

co-accused Prakash Tiwari S/o Gulab Tiwari was granted in

MCRC No.10292/2014 vide order dated 09.01.2015.

Taking into consideration 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.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
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9451/2015
29.10.2015
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri RS Parmar, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.
This is fourth application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

First application of the applicant was dismissed, as

withdrawn in MCRC No.1320/2015 vide order dated

19.02.2015. The second application was dismissed on merit

in MCRC No.3050/2015 vide order dated 28.04.2015. The

third application was filed on the ground that the prosecutrix

is not appearing before the Court, therefore, bail may be

granted to the present applicant. While disposing of the

application, following observations were made and directions

were issued:-

Accordingly, this third application under
section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not
tenable with direction to the trial Judge to take
suitable measures for service of summons and
bailable warrants on the witnesses. A copy of
this order be also sent to the concerning
Superintendent of Police with direction to
ensure that the concerned Station Incharge of
the police station should keep the witnesses
present before the trial Judge on the date fixed
for prosecution evidence. The applicant is given
a liberty to file fresh application after six
months if the prosecution witnesses do not
appear before the trial Judge.

After these directions, the prosecutrix was examined before

the court on 13.10.2015. In her statement, she did not support the

prosecution story at all. She completely turned hostile and even

while she was cross examined in detail by the Public Prosecutor,

she did not support the prosecution story.

Now this fourth application is filed on the ground that as

the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story, there is

no possibility of conviction in this case, therefore, this bail is

sought on the ground that as there is no possibility of conviction,

no benefit would arise if the present applicant would be kept

under custody.

After taking into consideration the statements of the

prosecutrix recorded before the court and all other relevant facts

and circumstances of the case, this fourth application under

section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail 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
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9105/2015
29.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
grant of temporary bail to the present applicant, who is a lady and

is pregnant and due date for delivery is reported to be

17.11.2015.

The first application filed by the present applicant was

dismissed on merit in MCRC No.6856/2015 vide order dated

22.09.2015. A report was sought from the jail authority and

according to the report, she is pregnant by eight and half months

and her due date for delivery is 17.11.2015.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

After taking into consideration the report, the application

for grant of temporary bail is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on temporary

bail for a period of Sixty days from the date of her release on his

furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand)

and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the trial Judge. The trial Judge is directed to fix a date for his

surrender before the Court depending upon her release from jail.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
application stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9076/2015
29.10.2015
Case diary is not available.

Let it be called for.

List alongwith MCRC No.9301/2015 in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9101/2015
29.10.2015
Shri Kaushal Sisodia, counsel for the applicant.

Shri RS Parmar, counsel for the respondent/State.
After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the

applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application as not pressed.

Prayer is allowed.

The application is accordingly, dismissed, as not pressed.

C.c. as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9124/2015
29.10.2015
Shri Ikram Ansari, counsel for the applicant.

Shri RS Parmar, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9134/2015
29.10.2015
Shri Vivek Singh, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.

List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9154/2015
29.10.2015
Shri Pawan Sharma, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the State is directed to call for the FSL report

on the next date of hearing.

List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MCRC No.9727/2015
29.10.2015
As prayed by counsel for the applicant, the case is

adjourned.

List on 02.11.2015, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.930/2013
29.10.2015
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants

Appellants Dilip S/o Ratanlal and Chanda Bai w/o

Mohanlal are present before the Court. They have been identified

by the counsel.

Heard on I.A. No.7143/2015, which is an application filed

on behalf of the appellants for condonation of their earlier non-

appearance on 20.07.2015 before the registry of this Court.

After due consideration, the application is allowed. The

appellants are directed to appear before the registry of this Court
on 20.01.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be

fixed by the registry in this behalf.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1342/2015
29.10.2015
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the

appellant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

The revision is admitted for final hearing.

Let record of the lower court be called for.

Also heard on I.A. No.7967/2015, which is an application

under section 397 read with section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension

of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present

applicant namely - Nandu S/o Kashiram.
The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-

CONVICTION SENTENCE

Section and Act Imprisonment Fine
341 of IPC 1 month SI Rs.1000/-
323 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs.500/-
325 of IPC 6 months Rs.500/-

The applicant is reported to be under custody.

Taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit

of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that if,

the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/-

(Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to

payment of fine, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of

the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail

for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on

21.01.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be

fixed by the Registry in this behalf.

Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9200/2015
29.10.2015

Shri RR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is first 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 - Mahidpur, District - Ujjain in Crime No.322/2015

under section 379 of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, present applicant was

charged for stealing a truck bearing registration No.MP-09-
HG-5840.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail

application on the ground that the truck was seized from his

possession and he was found sitting in the truck.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is

no criminal antecedents of the present applicant. There was

only some financial dispute between driver of the vehicle

and the present applicant.

Taking into consideration 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.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
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9210/2015
29.10.2015

Shri Yashwant Singh Nigote, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent /State.

Case diary is available.
Counsel for the State submits that there are as many as

13 criminal cases pending against the present applicant.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to verify criminal

antecedents of the present applicant.

Counsel for the State is directed to supply copy of the

list of criminal cases pending against the present applicant to

counsel for the applicant during the course of the day.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9218/2015
29.10.2015

Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent /State.

Case diary is available.
This is first 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 - Hira Nagar, District - Indore in Crime No.443/2015

under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act for keeping in his

possession 63 bulk liters of contraband country liquor.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail

application on the ground that there are as many as 4 cases

pending against the present applicant.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the

cases were of the years 2009 and 2011 and none of them is

under MP Excise Act. He undertakes that on being released

on bail, he will not indulge in any kind of criminal activities

whatsoever.

Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and also the undertaking given

by counsel for the applicant, which shall form condition of

this bail order, 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

subject to the aforesaid condition and 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.

In case of breach of the aforesaid condition of this bail

order, the bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled
without reference to this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9009/2015
28.10.2015

Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is first 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 - Jawad, District - Neemuch in Crime No.276/2015

under sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the deceased

Govardhan was taken by the present applicant for drinking

liquor alongwith prosecution witness Karulal. All the three

persons were consuming liquor near the village tank. Present

applicant was suspicious about relationship of deceased

Govardhan with his wife. It is alleged that after consuming

liquor, the deceased insisted that he would sleep in the house

of the present applicant on which present applicant got

furious. It is further alleged that prosecution witness Karulal

left them drinking liquor and came back. After that,

according to the prosecution, present applicant took the

deceased Govardhan and in a pit near the tank, he committed

murder of the deceased by hitting him with stones. Dead

body in highly decomposed state was found after three days

and thereafter, statements of three witnesses Chhaganlal, who

is real brother of the deceased, Karulal, who was consuming

liquor with the deceased and the present applicant and left
them drinking and also Ramchandra, the shop owner from

where they purchased the liquor, were recorded on

18.07.2015. Thereafter present applicant was arrested on

21.07.2015. On his memorandum, blood stained clothes of

the present applicant which he was wearing at the time of

incident, were recovered.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

deceased was consuming liquor with the present applicant on

14.07.2015, however, his dead body was recovered only on

17.07.2015. Meanwhile, no case of missing person was

reported by the family members of the deceased. No

explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why, no

report was lodged. The evidence in respect of last seen

together is also not very convincing, as the prosecution

witness Karulal, who was with them, left their company at

about 5:30 pm. After which whether, they remained there or
they also parted company, is not clear. Only prosecution

witness Ramchandra stated that he saw both of them going

from the tank after drinking liquor.

So far as the recovery of blood stained clothes are

concerned, counsel for the applicant alleged that draft letter

through which the seized property was sent to FSL, Gwalior,

shows that blood stained clothes were seized on 17.07.2015,

however, present applicant was arrested on 21.07.2015. His

memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act was also

prepared on 21.07.2015, therefore, there is no question of

seizure before 21.07.2015 and this according to him, creates

doubt.

I have gone through the case diary.

So far as the evidence in respect of last seen together is

concerned, there are ample evidence to show that he was last

seen alive with the present applicant and soon thereafter, as

per time assessed by the doctor in the postmortem report, the
deceased died. Therefore, at this stage, no doubt can be

created on this evidence. Similarly, so far as mentioning of

date in the draft letter for sending material to FSL is

concerned, same appears to be typographical error which can

be clarified at the time of evidence.

In this view of the matter, taking all the facts and

circumstances of the case in totality, I find no case is made

out for grant of bail to the present applicant.

The application is accordingly, dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9539/2015
28.10.2015

Shri A. Saraswat, Counsel for the applicant.

Miss Mini Ravindran, counsel for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.

This is first 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 -

Jhabua, District - Jhabua in Crime No.506/2015 under sections

363, 366, 376 and 368/34 of IPC and under section 7/8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

According to the prosecution story, on 05.08.2015, the

prosecutrix was going to her school alongwith her two brothers.

It is alleged that present applicant alongwith other co-accused

caught hold of her and took her with them. Thereafter, during

night, co-accused Prabhu committed rape on her.

So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is stated that

in the village - Nanankhedi, she was kept by the co-accused

Prabhu in the residence of present applicant.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and

submits that the prosecutrix was only 15 years and 3 months old
at the time of incident.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that present

applicant only helped the main accused as per the prosecution

story. He was not the main accused. The prosecutrix was taken as

per the customs prevailing in such tribes.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances

of the case and the role assigned to the present applicant,

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
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9545/2015
28.10.2015

Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, Counsel for the respondent/State.

This fourth application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is filed on

the ground that Investigating Officer Jinu Vishnoi is not appearing in

the case for the last three months. Therefore, it is prayed that bail may

be granted to the present applicant.

Counsel for the State is directed to ask the concerning

Superintendent of Police to keep the Investigating Officer present on

the next date of hearing positively. Failing which, the concerning

Incharge of the police station should remain present before this Court

to explain as to why the Investigating Officer could not be produced
before the Court on earlier occasions.

List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.

Copy of this order be supplied to Counsel for the State.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9548/2015
28.10.2015

Shri A. Saraswat, Counsel for the applicant.

Case diary is not available.

Let it be called for.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MCRC No.9549/2015
28.10.2015

Case diary is not available.
Let it be called for.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9550/2015
28.10.2015

Shri Amit Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant.

Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time.

List in the next week, as prayed.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9551/2015
28.10.2015

Case diary is not available.

Let it be called for.
List in the next week.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9569/2015
28.10.2015

None for the applicant.

Case diary is available.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1354/2015
28.10.2015

Counsel for the applicant submits that he has cured the

default pointed out by the office.

Office to verify and list the matter on 30.10.2015.
( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.589/2015
28.10.2015

As prayed by counsel for applicant, list after a week on

any Wednesday.

I.R. to continue.

C.c as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.584/2014
28.10.2015

Shri Jitendra Jhala, counsel for the appellant.

Shri B. Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.

Appellant - Shashi Bhushan S/o Laxman is present today

before the Court. He has been identified by the counsel.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed I.A.

No.8264/2015 today before the registry of this Court, which is

not available.

Office is directed to trace the application and place it on

record.

After due consideration, I.A. No.8264/2015 is allowed.

His earlier non-appearance before the registry of this Court

is condoned. He is directed to appear before the registry of this

Court on 28.01.2016 and thereafter, on all dates as may be fixed

by the registry in this behalf.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9546/2015
28.10.2015

Shri AS Rathore, counsel for the applicant.

Shri B. Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.
As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list on

03.11.2015.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.278/2015
28.10.2015

As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list the matter

on 04.10.2015.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.10428/2014
28.10.2015

As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list the matter in

the week commencing 16.11.2015 on Wednesday.
( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.7716/2015
28.10.2015

As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list the matter in

the week commencing 16.11.2015 on Wednesday.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8714/2015
28.10.2015

As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list the matter in

the week commencing 16.11.2015.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1177/2014
28.10.2015

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/State.

Shri HK Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

Respondent - Mohan Singh is present today before the Court.

He has been identified by the counsel.

Heard on I.A. No.7664/2015, which is an application for

condonation of his non-appearance on 28.09.2015.

The ground stated in the application is that on 28.09.2015, local

holiday was declared by the Collector, therefore, under mistaken

belief that High Court is also closed, he did not appear before the

Court.

Taking the ground stated in the application into consideration,

his earlier non-appearance on 28.09.2015 is hereby, condoned. He is

directed to appear before the registry of this Court on 19.01.2016 and

thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in

this behalf.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
RP No.271/2015
28.10.2015

Shri SC Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Issue notice to the respondents No.1 to 7 on payment of

PF within a week, returnable within four weeks

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.409/2006
28.10.2015

Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the

appellant.

Counsel for the appellant seeks fix date for production

of the appellant before the Court.

He is directed to keep the appellant present on

30.11.2015.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.8997/2015
28.10.2015

Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent /State.

This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C for

grant of bail to the present applicant.

The applicant failed to mark his presence before the

trial Court while he was on bail, on 28.08.2012. Thereafter,

he remained absent and did not appear before the trial Court

till 07.07.2015 when he was arrested. As per the rejection

order passed by learned trial Court for his absence before the

trial Court was stated to be that he was mentally upset and

due to this reason, he could not appear before the Court.

The Superintendent of District Jail, Shajapur, is

directed to submit a report in respect of his mental health

specially, whether, he is in mental state to defend the
criminal case against him.

Copy of this order may also be sent to the trial Court.

The trial Court is directed to verify the fact before

proceeding in the trial of the case.

List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9004/2015
28.10.2015

Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent

/State.

This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

While arguing the matter, it was pointed out by the counsel

that in the order passed by learned First Additional Sessions
Judge, Shajapur, dated 15.09.2015, after report was lodged by the

prosecutrix and also statements of mother of the prosecutrix were

recorded before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and video

recording was also done. While statement was recorded, in this

statement the prosecutrix stated that she was raped by the present

applicant. However, no such statements are available in the

charge-sheet.

Case diary is not available.

Counsel for the State is directed to verify whether, there is

any statement of the prosecutrix apart from the statement

recorded on 04.08.2015 and 10.08.2015 under section 164 of

Cr.P.C.

List on 03.11.2015.

Let copy of this order be supplied to counsel for the State.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.9439/2015
27.10.2015

Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent

/State.

Case diary is available.

This is first 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 -

Chhatripura, District - Indore in Crime No.257/2015 under

sections 307/34, 394, 397 of IPC and under section 25 of the

Arms Act.

According to the prosecution story, on 07.06.2015 at about

9:00 pm, when the complainant was coming back to his house

after selling vegetables, three accused persons were standing with

Activa two wheeler vehicle. It is alleged that one of the boy
inflicted knife injury on his abdomen but he did not stop to

continue towards his house and narrated the incident to Sunil and

Jitendra, who came back on the spot where they saw that the

miscreants inflicted knife injuries on Ganesh Sahoo and Rahul

Pagare, who were shifted to the hospital. The matter was reported

to the police against unknown persons under section 307 of IPC.

Subsequently, present applicant was arrested.

According to counsel for the applicant, there was no

mention of money in his memorandum under section 27 of the

Evidence Act. There was also no identification parade conducted

though, the incident took place at 9:00 pm when it was dark. The

knife recovered on his information, was not used in commission

of the crime. He further submits that co-accused Pammu @

Shubham was granted bail by this Court in MCRC

No.8349/2015 vide order dated 22.09.2015.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on

the ground that the incident took place at 9:00 pm and in FIR, it

was mentioned that due to darkness, complainant could not
recognized the miscreants.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

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
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.3718/2015

27.10.2015

Ms. Shraddha Dixit, counsel for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the

matter.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/

M.Cr.C. No.3984/2015

27.10.2015

Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent

/State.
Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the

matter.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/

M.Cr.C. No.9235/2015

27.10.2015

Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent /State.

After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the

applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application with liberty

to file a fresh application after recording of statements of

material prosecution witnesses.

Prayer is allowed.

With the aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed,
as withdrawn.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/

M.Cr.C. No.9293/2015

27.10.2015

Ms. Sofiya Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel 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 - Azad Nagar, District - Indore in Crime
No.624/2014 under sections 306 and 498-A/34 of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, the deceased

Poonam was married to one Jitendra about 7 to 8 years prior

to her death on 05.01.2015. Subsequently, about 3 years prior

to her death, when she came back to her parental house, she

developed intimacy with the present applicant and married

him. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was also born.

Subsequently, on 29.11.2014, by pouring kerosene on herself

and by putting herself on fire, she sustained serious burn

injuries and due to which, she died on 05.01.2015.

Her statement was recorded on 20.12.2014 in which,

she levelled certain allegations against present applicant and

his mother. However, parents of the deceased turned hostile

before the trial Judge and did not support the prosecution

story.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Counsel for the State opposed the bail application.
Counsel for the applicant submits that her statement

was recorded after 20 days of the incident. Her mother did

not support the allegations made by her in her statement

made under section 161 of Cr.P.C.

After going through the case diary and taking into

consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case,

without commenting on the merits of the case, the

application 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
Kratika/

M.Cr.C. No.9435/2015
27.10.2015

Case diary is not available.

Let it be called for.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9436/2015
27.10.2015

Case diary is not available.

Let it be called for.

List in the next week.
( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9449/2015
27.10.2015

Shri Ratnesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is first 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 - Aerodrome, District - Indore in Crime No.698/2015

under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act for keeping in his
possession 63 bulk liters of contraband country liquor.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail

application on the ground that there are as many as 12 cases

pending against the present applicant apart from the present

case, out of which, one is under section 394 of IPC and

another is under section 147, 148 of IPC. One case is also

pending against him under the MP Excise Act.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in most

of the cases, he is acquitted. He also submits that in case

under section 394 of IPC, he was acquitted and he has got

certified copy of the judgment. In other cases, which are

petty in nature, he is on bail and he is appearing regularly.

He further submits that on being released on bail, he will not

indulge in any kind of criminal activities whatsoever.

Taking into consideration the quantity of contraband

country liquor seized from possession of the present
applicant and also the undertaking given by counsel for

the applicant, which shall form condition of this bail

order, 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

subject to the aforesaid condition and 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.

In case of breach of the aforesaid condition of this bail

order, the bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled
without reference to this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCC No.829/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Issue notice on I.A. No.7851/2015 as well as main

application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 read with section

151 of CPC on payment of PF within a week, returnable

within four weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MA No.841/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company.

As per office report, all the respondents are served.

However, none appeared on their behalf.

Heard on I.A. No.3878/2015, which is an application for

dispensing with filing of certified copy of the award.

At this stage, counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company

submits that he has already filed certified copy of the award,

therefore, this application has been rendered infructuous.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed, as being

rendered infructuous.

Office is directed to calculate the period of limitation and

delay, if any, in filing of this appeal and submit its report on the

next date of hearing.

List after a week alongwith the report.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MA No.979/2015
26.10.2015
Shri LR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.

List after two weeks alongwith service report of the

respondent.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MA No.1088/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

He submits that matter be placed before the forthcoming

Lok Adalat.

Office is directed to explore possibility of placing the

matter before the forthcoming Lok Adalat.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CONC No.799/2014
26.10.2015
As prayed by both the counsels, list on 27.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CONC No.464/2014
26.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Respondent - Shri BM Gupta, CEO, Dewas Development

Authority, Dewas, is present in person.

As prayed, list the matter after 30.10.2015.

Meanwhile, personal appearance of Shri BM Gupta is

exempted.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9423/2015
26.10.2015

Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, learned counsel 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 - Hira Nagar District - Indore in Crime No.430/2015

under sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(I) of IPC and under

section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act.

According to the prosecution story, on 07.07.2015, the

prosecutrix, who was about 17 years old, was taken by the

present applicant promising her that he would marry her, to

Kanpur. There, she remained in the company of the present
applicant till 12.07.2015. The police went to Uttar Pradesh

and brought the prosecutrix back.

Her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded in which she stated that she was forcibly taken by

the present applicant to Uttar Pradesh but there was no

mention of committing rape on her. Her statement under

section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.07.2015 in which

she stated that 15 days prior to 07.07.2015, present applicant

had forcible intercourse with her.

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant

is falsely implicated in the case. In Dastayabi Panchnama, it

is stated that on 12.07.2015, she came to the police station

alongwith her parents and there, Dastayabi Panchnama was

made and she was handed over to her parents. While in her

statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C., she stated that

police came to Uttar Pradesh and brought present applicant

and herself back. For this fact, there is no evidence available
in the charge-sheet, which has already been filed. Hence, he

prays for grant of bail to the present applicant.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Counsel for the State submits that age of the

prosecutrix at the time of incident was below 18 years. She

was stated in her statement that she was forcibly taken to

Uttar Pradesh by the present applicant. He had physical

relationship with her also 15 days prior to the incident.

Therefore, at this stage, bail should not be granted to the

present applicant.

After going through the case diary and taking into

consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case,

without commenting on the merits of the case, the

application 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
Kratika/

MCRC No.9425/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri

Animesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.
Let it be called for.

List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9426/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri CS Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant submits that his earlier

application was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No.1583/2015

vide order dated 23.04.2015 with liberty to file a fresh

application after obtaining copy of statement of the prosecutrix

under section 164 of Cr.P.C. According to him, he applied for the

copy, however, it was reported that in Special Case No.66/2014

pending before the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, statement of the prosecutrix made under section

164 of Cr.P.C. is not available, therefore, supplying of the copy is
not possible.

Counsel for the State submits that as per the case diary,

Station Incharge of Police Station - Kannod, District - Dewas,

informed that her statement was recorded in Criminal Case

No.1653/2014. They have applied for obtaining the copy of the

statement but the copy was not given to them.

Let the concerning Sessions Judge, Dewas, be requested to

submit a report as to whether, any statement of the prosecutrix

under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in the matter relating

to Police Station - Kannod, District - Dewas in Crime

No.367/2014 under sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2)(N) and

506/34 of IPC, under section 3(1)(12) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act and under section 3/4 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act.

List in the next week alongwith the report of the Sessions

Judge.

Counsel for the State is also directed to verify whether, the

statement was recorded and if such statement is recorded, copy of
the same should be produced alongwith the case diary.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.546/2013
26.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the

matter.

List in the week commencing 16.11.2015, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
CRA No.1030/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.7994/2015, which is an application under

section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and

grant of bail filed on behalf of present appellant namely - Komal

@ Komal Singh.

The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-

CONVICTION SENTENCE

Section and Act Imprisonment Fine if deposited Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
307 of IPC 7 years' RI Rs.1000/- 1 month
RI

Presently, the appellant is stated to be under custody.

He was also under custody during trial. As per the

allegations, he inflicted injuries on the complainant

Mohabbat Singh by sword due to which ear lobule of the
complainant was partly severed. Counsel for the appellant

submits that the appellant is already under custody for the last

15 months.

Taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit

of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that if,

the present appellant furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to

payment of fine, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of

the appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail

for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on

01.03.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be

fixed by the Registry in this behalf.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9067/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.

Let it be called for.

List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9390/2015
26.10.2015
None for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.7708/2015

26.10.2015

Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent

/State.

Case diary is available.

This is second bail application filed by the applicant under

section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.

His first application was dismissed on merit in MCRC

No.379/2015 vide order dated 02.02.2015.

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station -

Gandhawani District - Dhar in Crime No.334/2014 under

sections 304(b)/34 of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

According to the prosecution, the deceased Manisha was

wife of co-accused Mohan @ Monu Bhilala. Their marriage took

place about six months prior to her death on 28.10.2014. There
was an allegation of demand of dowry by the present applicant as

well as other co-accused. It is alleged that due to demand of

dowry, she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous

substance(pesticide).

According to counsel for the applicant, father, mother and

uncle of the deceased were examined before the trial Court. They

did not support prosecution story at all and turned completely

hostile. Copies of the statements are filed by counsel for the

applicant. He further submits that there is only one more

prosecution witness to be examined, who is Vijay but, he is not

directly related to the deceased and apart from three witnesses,

no other important witness is left to be examined.

Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that

no other important witness is left to be examined, however, he

opposed the application on the ground that his first application

was dismissed on merit, therefore, till all the prosecution

witnesses are examined, bail should not be granted to the present

applicant.
Arguments heard, case diary perused.

After going through the case diary, taking into

consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case and

specially the fact that parents and other relatives of the deceased

have been examined and turned hostile, this second application 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
Kratika/
MCRC No.7849/2015
26.10.2015
Shri BL Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the

applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application with liberty

to file a fresh application after recording of statements of

material prosecution witnesses.

Prayer is allowed.

The application is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn

with the aforesaid liberty.

C.c. as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9036/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.

Let it be called for.

List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9037/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the

matter.
List in the next week, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9105/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

This is second application filed under section 439 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of temporary bail on the ground that the

applicant herself is pregnant and while in custody, her proper

care is not possible.

Counsel for the applicant also filed relevant medical

papers alongwith the application.

A report be called from the concerning jail authority in
respect of medical condition and probable date of delivery of

the applicant.

List on 29.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.854/2015
20.10.2015
Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Heard.

This Criminal Revision is filed under section 53 of the

Juvenile Justice Act against the order passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Dhar, District - Dhar in Criminal Appeal

No.191/2015 dated 02.07.2015 whereby, learned Sessions
Judge confirmed the order passed by learned Principal Judge

of Juvenile Justice Board, Dhar. The Juvenile Justice Board

by order dated 09.06.2015, dismissed the application filed by

the present applicant for grant of custody of the juvenile in

conflict with law and in appeal, the same was confirmed by

the Sessions Judge.

2. This revision is filed by father of the juvenile and his

guardian for his custody during trial.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that

the complainant Magar Singh lodged a complaint on

01.06.2015 that his daughter was missing and on his report,

Crime No.77/2015 under section 363 of IPC was registered

by the concerning police station. On investigation, it was

found that on the night of 01.06.2015, when the complainant

woke-up at 6 o'clock in the morning, he found her daughter

missing. The prosecutrix was recovered on 05.06.2015 and in

her statement made to the police, she stated that she was
kidnapped by the present applicant alongwith two other co-

accused and there, it is alleged that present applicant

committed rape on her.

4. A report of Probation Officer, District - Dhar, was

sought. The report has been submitted by learned counsel for

the State before this Court. In the statement, it is stated that

the juvenile in conflict with law is facing trial before the

Juvenile Justice Board for the last 5 months. He is interested

in his studies and he is repenting what he had done. He stated

before the Probation Officer that the prosecutrix went with

him with her consent and also told him that if he would not

take her, she would commit suicide. He was not knowing that

taking her, would harm him and he promised the Probation

Officer that in future, he will not repeat the mistake. Finally,

the Probation Officer recommended custody of the present

applicant to be handed over to his guardian.

5. Looking to the benevolent provisions of the Juvenile
Justice Act and the report of the Probation Officer in respect

of the boys in conflict with law, this revision stands allowed.

6. It is directed that if by the guardians of the present

applicant, a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.

Thirty Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like amount be

furnished before the Juvenile Justice Board with undertaking

therein that they will take care of the present applicant and

take care that he will not indulge in any kind of criminal

activities, his custody be handed over to their guardian.

7. It is further directed that guardian and the juvenile in

conflict with law will produce the juvenile before the

Probation Officer once in fifteen days and he would keep an

eye on his conduct during the period of his custody to his

guardian. If any unsocial activity is observed on the part of

the juvenile, the same should be reported to the Juvenile

Justice Board and the Juvenile Justice Board is at liberty to

take suitable action for cancellation of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

revision stands disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
WP No.7174/2015
20.10.2015
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri

Akash Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned counsel for the

respondents No.1 to 5 on caveat.

Let notice be issued to the respondents No.6 and 7 on

payment of PF within three working days.

It is submitted that one more petition which has been

filed by the petitioner vide WP No.6822/2015 is going to be

listed on 30.11.2015.

In respect of the interim relief, learned counsel for the

Caveator submits that the bank guarantee of the petitioner

has already been encashed.

It has also pointed out by learned Sr. Counsel that

number of writ petitions are pending and in other writ

petitions, the Division Bench has directed that the result of

auction notice shall be subject to final decision of the writ
petition.

As prayed, list after three weeks.

Meanwhile, it is directed that the result of auction

notice shall be subject to final decision of the writ petition.

List alongwith W.P. Nos.6818/2015 and 6822/2015 for

analogous hearing.

C.c. as per rules.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

WP No.188/2015
20.10.2015
Shri RL Jain, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Veena

Mandlik, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the respondent.

It appears that by mistake, office has listed the matter
for admission whereas, the writ petition has already been

admitted for final hearing vide order dated 09.01.2015.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

CONC No.173/2014
20.10.2015
Shri MA Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Vibha Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2.

Shri Piyush Shrivastav, learned counsel for the

respondents No.4 to 7.

None for respondents No.1 and 3.

As per the service report, notice has been duly served to

the respondent No.3.

Let fresh notice be issued to the respondents No.1 on
her correct address on payment of PF within a week,

returnable within four weeks.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

WP No.2503/2011
20.10.2015
As prayed by Shri Govind Purohit, Advocate, appearing

on behalf of Shri GS Patwardhan, Advocate, the case is

adjourned.

List after a week, as prayed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-
WP No.6841/2014
20.10.2015
Parties through their counsel.

Smt. Meena Chaphekar, learned counsel for the

respondent No.3 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to

file additional reply.

List alongwith WP No.2693/2014.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-
WP No.2693/2014
20.10.2015
Parties through their counsel.

Smt. Meena Chaphekar, learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to

file additional reply.

List alongwith WP No.6841/2014.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

WP No.6695/2014
20.10.2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri RL Jain, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Veena

Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent.
List on 28.10.2015, as prayed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

WA No.214/2015
20.10.2015
Shri LC Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned counsel for the

respondent No.1/State.

Let fresh notice be issued to the respondents No.2, 3

and 4 on both counts on payment of PF within a week,

returnable within four weeks.

Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.

C.c as per rules.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

WP No.553/2015
20.10.2015
Shri Ambar Pare, learned counsel for the petitioner.

As prayed, list after two weeks alongwith WP

No.546/2015.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

WP No.546/2015
20.10.2015
Shri Ambar Pare, learned counsel for the petitioner.

As prayed, list after two weeks.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

WP No.629/2015
20.10.2015
Shri PR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1.

Heard.

Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there is

no provision to provide copy of the answer sheet. She

submits that the main result was declared on 12.06.2014. The

petitioner applied for revaluation and the result of revaluation

was declared on 18.11.2014. Thereafter, he filed an

application under the RTI Act, 2005 on 21.10.2014 but till

today, the same has not been provided after the period of

more than one year though, the writ petition was filed on

27.01.2015. After a period of one year when there is no order
under the RTI Act, 2005, copies of the answer sheet of the

subject cannot be provided to the petitioner. She further

submits that if the petitioner apply for the answer sheet by

filing a fresh application under the RTI Act, 2005, the

respondent will provide them copy of the answer sheet.

Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on the

merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to file an

appropriate application before the concerned respondent

under the RTI Act, 2005, seeking copy of the answer sheet.

If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the

needful be done by the concerned respondent from the date

of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands

disposed of.

C.c as per rules.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

W.P. No.7259/2015
20.10.2015
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within

a week, returnable within four weeks. In addition, the

petitioner is at liberty to serve by hamdast notice on payment

of usual charges as per rules.

List in the week commencing 02.11.2015 alongwith

other connected matters.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-
CRA No.1220/2015
20.10.2015
Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for and

is granted ten days' further time to file reply of I.A.

No.6791/2015.

List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.1450/2015
20.10.2015
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State on advance notice.

Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Let record of the trial Court be called for.

Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel accepts notice on

behalf of respondent/State, therefore, no notice is required to

be sent.

List for final hearing in due course.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1047/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant.

Shri RS Bais, counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.6306/2015, which is an application

filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of

delay of 262 days in filing of this revision. However, as per

office report, the revision is filed with delay of 272 days.

The reason stated in the application is that present

applicant was not informed by concerning counsel that his

conviction was maintained by appellate Court and also that

he was suffering from various diseases. The application is

supported by an affidavit of Shri Pawan Khandelwal, son-in-

law of the present applicant, as he was in jail at the time of

filing of this revision and application.

Counsel for the respondent opposed the application on

the ground that no cogent reason has been stated in the

application.

Taking into consideration the ground stated in the

application and by accepting the same, application is

allowed. The delay of 272 days in filing of this revision is
hereby, condoned.

Record of the lower court is available.

Heard on the question of admission.

The revision is admitted for final hearing.

List it for final hearing in due course.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.1149/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Anupam Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.6407/2015, which is an application filed

under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in

filing the present appeal.

The ground stated in the application is that family of the present

appellant is not in financial position to file the appeal. After arranging
necessary fund for filing of this appeal, which is according to the

office report, is filed with the delay of 410 days.

After due consideration of the ground stated in the application,

which is supported by affidavit, the application is allowed. The delay

of 410 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.

Let record of the lower court be called for.

List for consideration of I.A. No.6406/2015 after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1304/2015
19.10.2015
None for the applicant.

Let the default pointed out by the office be removed

within a week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
CRA No.1307/2015
19.10.2015
None for the appellant.

Let the default pointed out by the office be removed

within a week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1324/2015
19.10.2015
None for the applicant.

Let the default pointed out by the office be removed

within a week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1342/2015
19.10.2015
Smt Archana Kher, counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, counsel for the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.8011/2015, which is an application

for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the impugned

order.

After due consideration, the application is allowed. The

applicant is directed to file the certified copy soon after

getting it from the concerning court.

List for consideration of I.A. No.7967/2015 in the week

commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.1388/2015
19.10.2015
Smt. M. Shandilya, counsel for the appellant/State.
She prays for and is granted two weeks' time to remove

the default pointed out by the office.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MA No.1433/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Jeevraj Paliwal, counsel for the appellant.

He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file

appropriate application for dispensing with service of notice

on respondents No.1 and 2.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MA No.1837/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Mehul Negi, counsel for the appellant/insurance
company.

Issue notice on I.A. Nos.7547/2015, 7548/2015 and

memo of appeal to the respondents on payment of PF within

a week, returnable within four weeks.

Meanwhile, counsel for the appellant/insurance

company is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of award

as ordered by the learned Tribunal below.

List after service of notice on the respondents.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.3260/2015
19.10.2015
Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the

matter.
Meanwhile, interim relief passed in MCRC

No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,

3263/2015 and 3264/2015.

List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.

C.c as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.3261/2015
19.10.2015
Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the

matter.

Meanwhile, interim relief passed in MCRC

No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,

3263/2015 and 3264/2015.

List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
C.c as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.3264/2015
19.10.2015
Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the

matter.

Meanwhile, interim relief passed in MCRC

No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,

3263/2015 and 3264/2015.

List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.

C.c as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MCRC No.3263/2015
19.10.2015
Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the

matter.

Meanwhile, interim relief passed in MCRC

No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,

3263/2015 and 3264/2015.

List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.

C.c as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.6796/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Govind Purohit, counsel for the applicant/E.O.W.

He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file
Process Fee.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MCRC No.8332/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Yashpal Rathore, counsel for the applicant.

He prays for and is granted a week's time to remove the

default pointed out by the office.

List after a week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9216/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Virendra Khadav, counsel for the applicant.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to file fresh certified

copy of the impugned order in which case number is properly

mentioned. He is also directed to remove the defect pointed out

by the office at Serial No.2 within a week.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MA No.1659/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Himanshu Paliwal, counsel for the appellant.

Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Let record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within

a week, returnable within four weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MA No.1813/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Mehul Negi, counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company.

Issue notice of I.A. No.7466/2015 as well as memo of

appeal to respondents No.1 to 6 on payment of PF within a

week, returnable within four weeks. Notices on respondents

No.3 and 4 be served through their mother, respondent No.2

- Smt. Totli Bai W/o Dayaram.

Meanwhile, counsel for the appellant / Insurance

Company is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of award

as ordered by the learned Tribunal below.

C.c. as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.893/2015
19.10.2015
None for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, counsel for the respondent/State.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.13/2014
19.10.2015
Shri Yashraj Dube, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri

AK Nalwaya, Advocate submits that Shri Nalwaya is not

available today and seeks time.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1020/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Yashraj Dube, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri
AK Nalwaya, Advocate submits that Shri Nalwaya is not

available today and seeks time.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.1136/2015
19.10.2015
Shri A. Dubey, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

This matter was heard finally and reserved for order.

However, while writing the final order, I find that the applicant

has not filed certified copy of the impugned order by which

charges were framed. Only copy of the charges is filed, therefore,

the matter is released with direction to the applicant to file

certified copy of the impugned order.

List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.1136/2015
07.10.2015
Shri A. Dubey, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard finally.

Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8540/2015 and
MCRC No.9117/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Rahim Khan, learned counsel for the applicant in

MCRC No.8540/2015.

Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant

in MCRC No.9117/2015.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This common order shall govern disposal of MCRC

Nos.8540/2015 and 9117/2015.

The applicant namely - Sameer @ Raja Barik in MCRC

No.8540/2015, according to the prosecution story, was

driving the motorcycle while the applicant namely - Asjad

Khan in MCRC No.9117/2015, was the main conspirator of

crime.

The accused/applicants were arrested by the Police

Station - Station Road, District - Ratlam in Crime

No.339/2013 under section 307/34 of IPC and under

section 25, 27 of Arms Act.

According to the prosecution story on 29.07.2013,

complainant Rajesh Katariya was chased by two persons on

motorcycle and they also fired gunshots on him, due to

which, he sustained some injuries. Subsequently, present
applicant was arrested on the information given by co-

accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act. On his

memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act, two live

cartridges were seized.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC

No.8540/2015 submits that the applicant was arrested after

two years of the incident. He further submits that he has

falsely been implicated in this case.

Learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC

No.9117/2015 submits that the applicant has falsely been

implicated in this case merely because he had filed Writ

Petition No.2807/2015 before this Court in which it was

alleged that the police wrongfully put lock on his shop. The

Court ordered opening of the shop and due to this reason, the

police was keeping grudge against him. He has filed relevant
papers and orders of the writ petition filed by him.

Taking all the facts and circumstance of the case into

consideration, 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 applicants shall be released on bail

on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty

Thousand only) and one solvent surety each of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for

their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be

directed in this regard during trial.

They are further directed that on being so released on

bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated

under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8320/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is second bail application filed by the applicant

under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

grant of bail. His first application was dismissed as

withdrawn in MCRC No.6544/2015 vide order dated

30.07.2015.

Now this second application is filed on two grounds.

One being that co-accused Hukum Singh was granted bail by

this Court in MCRC No.6072/2015 vide order dated

23.07.2015 and according to counsel for the applicant same

charges were framed by the trial Court under sections 366,
363 and 376/34 of IPC.

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police

Station-Susner, District-Agar in Crime No.71/2015 under

sections 363, 366 and 376/34 of IPC.

According to prosecution story, Shankar Singh is

husband of prosecutrix. It is alleged that he alongwith present

applicant Hukum Singh and another co-accused Gopal took

her, removed her silver jwellery then she was beaten and

handed over to Gopal, who took her to various places and

committed rape on her. According to statement under section

164 of Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix, she also involved her husband,

the present applicant in commission of crime.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that the

prosecutrix has entered into compromise with the present

applicant. She has received a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- by way of

final settlement and for this purpose, copy of the affidavit

executed by the prosecutrix is filed with the application. He

further submits that the prosecutrix has no objection if bail is
granted to the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the application

on the ground that case of the present applicant is different

than that of the co-accused Hukum Singh, who was granted

bail by this Court. Present applicant is husband of the

prosecutrix, who took her and himself handed her over to the

co-accused Gopal, who committed rape on her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

prosecutrix remained in company of the co-accused Gopal

and never complained to anybody. She was infact a

consenting party and the only dispute was that he did not pay

her money and married again to other woman. He further

submits that there is no progress in trial and he has submitted

certified copy of the order-sheet of the trial Court.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused.

After going through the case diary, taking into

consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and

the documents produced by counsel for the objector, 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 in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one 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
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.1176/2015
16.10.2015
Shri SK Meena, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard finally.

Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.1269/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Neeraj Gaur, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two

weeks' time to file entire copies of the charge-sheet.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
Cr.R. No.1301/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Sapnesh Jain, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the arguing counsel

is outsider, prays for time.

List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.2077/2015
16.10.2015
None for the applicant.

Shri Vismit Panot, counsel for the respondent.

In absence of counsel for the applicant, hearing in the

matter is not possible.

List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.5585/2015
16.10.2015
Smt Sharmila Sharma, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's

time to file entire copies of the charge-sheet.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6010/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Vikas Rathi, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard finally.
Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6208/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Hemendra Jain, counsel for the applicant.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the arguing counsel

is not available today and seeks time.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6428/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri A. Saraswat, counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter,
as he has not received copies of the necessary documents.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to supply copies

within three days.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6868/2015
16.10.2015
Shri OP Sharma, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard finally.

Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7154/2015
16.10.2015
Shri A Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent no.1/State.

Issue notice to the respondent no.2 on payment of PF

within a week, returnable within four weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7237/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Dave, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard finally.

Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7595/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

List alongwith MCRC No.7445/2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7717/2015
16.10.2015
Shri SA Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard finally.

Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7936/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional

documents in the matter.

List after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8095/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard on I.A. No.6888/2015, which is an application for

stay.

Issue notice of this application as well as main application

filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to the respondents by hamdast

mode on payment of PF within three days, returnable within two

weeks.

List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
Let record of the lower court be called for.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8560/2015
16.10.2015
Shri A. Saraswat, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed

on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-

Station Road, District - Ratlam in Crime No.148/15 for the

offence punishable under section 379 of IPC for theft of

motorcycle. It is alleged that several vehicles were recovered on

the information given by the present applicant. Four cases of theft

under section 379 of IPC were made against the present
applicant.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused.

Counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

Counsel for the applicant submits that two other co-accused

were granted bail by the lower court. However, bail of present

applicant was dismissed.

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, the application is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand)

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.

The applicant 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.

C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8580/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Counsel for the State submits that case diary is available,

however, criminal antecedents of the present applicant are not

available and seeks time to positively call for the same.

List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8623/2015
16.10.2015
Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the application

with liberty to file afresh application after recording of statements

of material prosecution witnesses.

Prayer is allowed.

With the aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed, as

withdrawn.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8706/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.
This is second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for

grant of temporary bail for two months.

This second application is filed on the ground that mother

of the present applicant is suffering from Cancer. The applicant

also filed various medical papers which were verified through

Police Station - Maksi, District - Shajapur. According to

verification report, mother of the present applicant is suffering

from Cancer. They are two brothers Lachhu and Sanju and both

of them are in jail in connection with case pending under section

302 of IPC. No other adult male person is available in the family.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

After taking into consideration the report, the application

for grant of temporary bail is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on temporary

bail for the period of Sixty days from the date of his release on

his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty

Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial Judge. The trial Judge is directed to fix a
date for his surrender before the Court depending upon his

release from jail.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

application stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8794/2015
16.10.2015
Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time.

List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8860/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.

This is second application filed under section 439 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of temporary bail on the ground that wife of the

present applicant is advised to undergo Hysterectomy operation

by the doctors at Ratlam.

Counsel for the State is directed to verify the medical

papers and submit report on the next date of hearing.

List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8894/2015
16.10.2015
Case diary is not available.

List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8997/2015
16.10.2015
Case diary is not available.

List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9083/2015
16.10.2015
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed

on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-

Kukshi, District - Dhar in Crime No.446/15 for the offence

punishable under sections 454 and 354 of IPC and under section

7/8 and 8, 9(n)/10 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act.

According to the prosecution story, parents of the

prosecutrix went out to earn livelihood as labourer. The

prosecutrix was alone at her residence. When the prosecutrix was

cleaning utensils in her residence, it is alleged present applicant

entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her

modesty and he also torned her clothes. Age of the prosecutrix as

per the school record is 17 years and 7 months.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

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, the application is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand)

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.

The applicant 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.

C.c. as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9159/2015
16.10.2015

Case diary is not available.
List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8832/2015
15.10.2015
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Kannod, District - Dewas in Crime No.225/15 for the offence
punishable under sections 294, 366, 354, 323 and 506 of IPC
and under sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(12) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution story, it is alleged that
present applicant used to tease the prosecutrix and he used
obscene language against her. On 21.05.2015, when the
prosecutrix was going to market, present applicant forcibly
got her seated on his motorcycle. She jumped from the
motorcycle and then, it is alleged that he used obscene
language against her caste and also slapped her and torned
her clothes.
Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has
been filed. His presence is not required for investigation. This
apart, the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution story
in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C fully.
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, the
application is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand) 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.
The applicant 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.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8845/2015
15.10.2015
Shri Rohit Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the arguing
counsel is not available today and prays for time.
List in the week commencing 02.11.2015, as
prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.8847/2015
15.10.2015
Shri CL Yadav, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Neeraj Gaur,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed on
behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Kannod, District - Dewas in Crime No.281/15 for the offence
punishable under sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, it is alleged that present
applicant alongwith co-accused Manohar committed murder of
Mukesh. So far as the present applicant is concerned, his own
motorcycle was seized from his possession that is as per the
discloser memo of co-accused Manohar, was used in commission
of crime. However, no other evidence is available against present
applicant to connect him with commission of crime.
Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application
on the ground that blood stained clothes and pieces of Sim Card
were seized from field of the present applicant. However, the
same were seized on the discloser memo given by the co-accused
and not by this applicant.
Counsel for the applicant submits that he is falsely
implicated in the case. There is no motive so far as the present
applicant is concerned.
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, the application is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five
Thousand) 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.
The applicant 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.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8868/2015
15.10.2015
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for
the applicant seeks to withdraw the application with
liberty to file afresh application at appropriate stage.
Prayer is allowed.
The application is accordingly, dismissed, as
withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
C.c as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8882/2015
15.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015, as
prayed.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8906/2015
15.10.2015
Shri Hidayatulla Khan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police
Station- MG Road, District - Indore in Crime No.272/15
for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, present
applicant used photocopy of the original Rin Pustika for
standing surety against many persons. When it was
detected by the concerning court, the matter was
reported to the police station and inquiry was conducted
by Tehsildar. After that, applicant was arrested.
Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application on the ground that it is a serious matter and
the offence is against the administration of justice, which
should be taken seriously.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
is sole male member of the family. He undertakes that
present applicant will not appear in the Court except to
attend the court on the date of hearing in this particular
case.
After perusing the case-diary, taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case
and on considering the undertaking given by counsel for
the applicant, which shall form condition of this bail
order, the application is allowed.
Subject to the aforesaid condition, it is directed that
applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) 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.
The applicant 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.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the President of
Hatod Bar Association with direction that if he is found
present applicant present in the court, the matter should
immediately be reported to the concerning court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1036/2014
15.10.2015
As prayed by counsel for the applicant, the case is

adjourned.

List on 28.10.2015, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
E.P. No.23/2014
20.10.2015
Shri AM Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Abhinav

Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri CL Yadav, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri OP Solanki,

learned counsel for the respondent.

A question was raised before both the Counsels by this

Court and their respective views were sought on the following

question:-

2. "At what stage of trial, notices are to be issued to the

persons, who have been proved at the trial guilty of any corrupt

practice and who are to be named under section 99 (1) (a) (II) of

the Representation of People Act, 1951".

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

referred judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Dwarka Prasad Mishra Vs. Kamal Narayan Sharma and

another reported in 1970 MPLJ 872. In this case, for

Shyamacharan Shukla, who was then printer, proprietor,

publisher and keeper of the Mahakoshal Press, a Hindi daily was
sought to be named under section 99 of the Representation of the

People Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Hon'ble the

Supreme Court made following observations in paragraphs 36 to

38 of the judgment:-

36. It is however necessary, before we finally
decide this appeal, to deal with the application
which is made by the respondents who were on
their own application impleaded in this appeal
Mr. Chagla counsel for those respondents
contends that the Court was bound to name
Shyamacharan Shukla, printer, publisher,
proprietor and keeper of Mahakoshal Press-a
Hindi daily-under section 99 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section
99 (1) of the Act, as it then stood, provided:
(1) At the time of making an order under
section 98 the Tribunal shall also make an
order--
(a) where any charge is made in the
petition of any corrupt practice having
been committed at the election,
recording--
(i) a finding whether any corrupt
practice has or has not been proved to
have been committed by, or with the
consent of, any candidate or his agent
at the election, and the nature of that
corrupt practice; and
(ii) the names of all persons, if
any,who have been proved at the trial
to have been guilty of any corrupt
practice and the nature of that
practice; and
(b)................................
Provided that a person who is not a
party to the petition shall not be
named in the order under sub-
clause,(ii)of clause (a) unless-
(a) he has been given notice to appear
before the Tribunal and to show cause
why he should not be so named; and
(b) if he appears in pursuance of the
notice he has been given an
opportunity of cross-examining any
witness who has already been
examined by the Tribunal and has
given evidence against him, of calling
evidence in his defence and of being
heard."

The High Court recorded in paragraph 199 (4)
& (5) of their judgment their conclusion as
follows :
"(4) It is proved that the
Mahakoshal a Hindi daily, published
from Raipur, and Shyamacharan
Shukla, who was its proprietor,
publisher, printer and keeper of the
Press, were both agents of the
respondent within the meaning of
section 123 of the Act.
(5) It is proved that three false
statements (Annexures 1, 11, 111)
were published in the Mahakoshal,
issues of the 12th and 26th April and
4th May, 1963, in relation to-the
personal character and conduct of the
petitioner; that all the three were false;
and that the respondent did not
believe any of them to be true. It is
held that they were statements of the
fact and that they were reasonably
calculated to prejudice the election
prospects of the petitioner.

At the hearing an application was made before
the High Court that a proceeding should be
drawn up under S. 99 of the Act against
Shyamacharan, Shukla and a notice should be
issued to him why he should not be named as
having committed corrupt practice under s.
123 (4) of the Act. The High Court observed
that the three statements (Annexures I, II & III)
were published in the Mahakoshal of which
Shyamacharan Shukla was the proprietor,
publisher, printer and keeper. The High Court
further observed that Shyamacharan Shukla was
the agent of Mishra within the meaning of
section 123 (4) but Shyamacharan Shukla was
not and could not be made a party to the
election petition. But the High Court was of the
view that when the appeal was placed for
hearing in April 1968, Mishra had raised
certain preliminary objections and Sharma had
also urged those preliminary contentions all of
which were decided by the order dated May 4,
1968, and it was the, duty of Sharma on that
occasion to satisfy the High Court, prima facie,
that Shyamacharan Shukla had committed a
corrupt practice under S. 123 (4) of the Act so
that notice could be issued to him 'and
opportunity to which he was entitled under
section 99 of the Act may have been made
available to him. But that was not done and in
the opinion of the Court for avoiding further
delay the application should be rejected.

37. We are unable to agree with the view so
propounded by the High Court. Under section
99 of the Act the Court has no discretion in the
matter, if the Court was of the view that any
person who is proved at the trial to have been
guilty of any corrupt practice, not to name that
person. It is true that preliminary objections
were argued at an earlier stage, but Sharma
could not before the appeal was heard ask the
Court to issue a notice under section 99 of the
Act on the footing that his case which was
rejected by the Tribunal will be accepted. The
duty under the Act is cast upon the Court or the
Tribunal, and on the ground that the party has
not applied for a notice, the High Court could
not avoid the obligation imposed by statute to
take proceeding under section 99, against the
person proved at the trial to have been guilty
of corrupt practice and to name him. We fail
also to appreciate the ground on which the
High Court has referred to delay been an
"outweighing factor". Shyamacharan Shukla
was however not a party to the proceeding
and before he could be named a notice must
go to him under section 99 of the Act.

38. We direct that, the proceeding be remanded
to the High Court and the High Court do give
notice to Shyamacharan Shukla under section
99 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 to appear and to show cause why he
should not be named for committing corrupt
practices. If Shyamacharan Shukla appears in
pursuance of the show cause notice he will be
entitled to an opportunity of cross-examining
witnesses who have already been examined by
the Tribunal and has given evidence against
him and he will be entitled to give evidence
in his defence and of being heard. The High
Court to report to this Court within three
months from the date on which the papers are
received by it.

4. Placing reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submits that in para 37 of the judgment, the words used are

'who is proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt

practice' implies that first finding has to be given by the

Court that the person to be named is guilty of any corrupt

practice and thereafter, notice to be issued to him and after

giving him opportunity to cross examine the witness, who

deposed against him and also adducing necessary evidence

on his behalf, final finding about him should be given.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent

however, disagrees with the submissions made by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He placed reliance on the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Mahohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another

reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 796. In this case,

Hon'ble the Supreme Court dealt with the effect of non-

compliance of section 99 of the Act. From paragraphs 49 to

58, Hon'ble the Supreme Court laid down the principles

governing procedure under section 99 of the Act. The

relevant paragraphs of the judgment be reproduced here as

under:-

49. Before we take up for consideration
the corrupt practice attributed to the appellant
himself in para 30 of the election petition based
on his own speech on 24.2.1990, it would be
appropriate at this stage to refer to the argument
based on Section 99 of the R.P. Act. Non-
compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act.
50. Admittedly, no notice was given to
Bal Thackeray, Pramod Mahajan or any other
person against whom allegation was made of
commission of corrupt practice in the election
petition, even though the High Court has held
those corrupt practices to be proved for the
purpose of declaring the appellant's election to
be void on the ground contained in Section
100(1)(b) of the R.P. Act. We would now
indicate the effect of the combined reading of
Sections 98 and 99 of the R.P. Act and the
requirement of notice under section 99 to all
such persons before decision of the election
petition by making an order under Section 98 of
the R.P. Act.
51. The combined effect of Sections 98
and 99 of the R.P. Act may now be seen. These
provisions are as under:-
"98. Decision of the High Court.- At the
conclusion of the trial of an election petition the
High Court shall make an order -

(a) dismissing the election petition; or

(b) declaring the election of all or any of
the returned candidates to be void; or

(c) declaring the election of all or any of
the returned candidates to be void and the
petitioner or any other candidate to have been
duly elected.

99. Other orders to be made by the High Court. -
(1) At the time of making an order under section
98 the High Court shall also make an order -

(a) where any charge is made in the petition of
any corrupt practice having been committed at
the election, recording -

(i) a finding whether any corrupt practice has or
has not been proved to have been committed at
the election, and the nature of that corrupt
practice; and

(ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have
been proved at the trial to have been quality of
any corrupt practice and the nature of that
practice; and

(b) fixing the total amount of costs payable and
specifying the persons by and to whom costs
shall be paid:

Provided that a person who is not a party to the
petition shall not be named in the order under
sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) unless -

(a) he has been given notice to appear before the
High Court and to show cause why he should not
be so named; and

(b) if he appears in pursuance of the notice, he
has been given an opportunity of cross-
examining any witness who has already been
examined by the High Court and has given
evidence against him, of calling evidence in his
defence and of being heard.

(2) In this section and in section 100, the
expression "agent" has the same meaning as in
section 123."

52. The opening words in section 98 are "At the
conclusion of the trial of an election petition the
High Court shall make an order". There can be
no doubt that section 98 contemplates the
making of an order thereunder in the decision of
the High Court rendered `at the conclusion of the
trial of an election petition'. Declaration of the
election of any returned candidate to be void in
accordance with clause (b) is clearly to be made
in the decision of the High Court rendered at the
conclusion of the trial of an election petition and
not at an intermediate state. Clauses (a), (b) and
(c) in section 98 contemplate the different kinds
of orders which can be made by the High Court
in its decision at the conclusion of the trial which
has the effect of disposing of the election
petition in the High Court. There is nothing in
section 98 to permit the High Court to decide the
election petition piecemeal and to declare the
election of any returned candidate to be void at
an intermediate stage of the trial when any part
of the trial remains to be concluded.
53. Sub-section (1) of section 99 begins with the
words "At the time of making an order under
section 98 the High Court shall also make an
order" of the kind mentioned in clauses (a) and
(b) therein. It is amply clear that the order which
can be made under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 99 is required to be made
`at the time of making an order under section 98'.
As earlier indicated, an order under section 98
can be made only at the conclusion of the trial.
There can be no doubt that the order which can
be made under sub-section (1) of section 99 has,
therefore, to be made only at the conclusion of
the trial of an election petition in the decision of
the High Court made by an order disposing of
the election petition in one of the modes
prescribed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section
98. This alone is sufficient to indicate that the
requirement of section 99 is to be completed
during the trial of the election petition and the
final order under section 99 has to be made in
the decision of the High Court rendered under
section 98 at the conclusion of the trial of the
election petition.
54. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 99
provides for the situation "where any charge is
made in the petition of any corrupt practice
having been committed at the election". In that
case, it requires that at the time of making an
order under section 98, the High Court shall also
make an order recording a finding whether any
corrupt practice has or has not been proved to
have been committed at the election and the
nature of that corrupt practice; and the names of
all persons, if any, who have been proved at the
trial to have been quality of any corrupt practice
and the nature of that corrupt practice. Clause (b)
further requires the fixing of the total amount of
costs payable and specifying the person by and
to whom costs shall be paid. The net result is
that where any charge is made in the petition of
any corrupt practice having been committed at
the election, the High Court shall `at the time of
making an order under section 98' also make an
order recording a finding whether any corrupt
practice has or has not been proved to have been
committed at the election and the nature of that
corrupt practice; and where the charge of corrupt
practice has been found proved, it must also
record the names of all persons, if any, who have
been proved at the trial to have been quality of
any corrupt practice and the nature of that
practice. thus the trial is only one at the end of
which the order made by the High Court must
record the names of all persons, if any, who have
been proved at the trial to have been quality of
the corrupt practice and the nature of that
practice.
55. It follows that the High Court cannot make
an order under section 98 recording a finding of
proof of corrupt practice against the returned
candidate alone and on that basis declare the
election of the returned candidate to be void and
then proceed to comply with the requirement of
section 99 in the manner stated therein with a
view to decide at a later stage whether any other
person also is quality of that corrupt practice for
the purpose of naming him then under Section
99 of the R.P. Act. It is equally clear that the
High Court has no option in the matter to decide
whether it will proceed under section 99 against
the other persons alleged to be quality of that
corrupt practice along with the returned
candidate inasmuch as the requirement of section
99 is mandatory since the finding recorded by
the High Court requires it to name all persons
proved at the trial to have been quality of the
corrupt practice. The expression "the names of
all persons, if any, who have been proved at the
trial to have been quality of any corrupt practice"
in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of section 99 clearly provides for such proof
being required `at the trial' which means `the
trial of an election petition' mentioned in section
98, at the conclusion of which alone the order
contemplated under section 98 can be made.
There is no room for taking the view that the
trial of the election petition for declaring the
election of the returned candidate to be void
under section 98 can be concluded first and then
the proceedings under section 99 commenced for
the purpose of deciding whether any other
person is also to be named as being quality of the
corrupt practice of which the returned candidate
has earlier been held quality leading to his
election being declared void.
56. The rationale is obvious. Where the returned
candidate is alleged to be quality of a corrupt
practice in the commission of which any other
person has participated with him or the candidate
is to be held vicariously liable for a corrupt
practice committed by any other person with his
consent, a final verdict on that question can be
rendered only at the end of the trial, at one time,
after the inquiry contemplated under section 99
against the other person, after notice to him, has
also been concluded. Particularly, in a case
where liability is fastened on the candidate
vicariously for the act of another person, unless
that act is found proved against the doer of that
act, the question of recording a finding on that
basis against the returned candidate cannot arise.
Viewed differently, if the final verdict has
already been rendered against the returned
candidate in such a case, the opportunity
contemplated by section 99 by an inquiry after
notice to the other person is futile since the
verdict has already been given. On the other
hand, if the question is treated as open, a
conflicting verdict after inquiry under section 99
in favour of the notice would lead to an
absurdity which could not be attributed to the
legislature.
57. The plain language of Section 98 and 99 of
the R.P. Act indicates the construction thereof
made by us and this is also supported by the
likely outcome of a different construction which
is an absurd result and must, therefore, be
rejected. The High Court has overlooked the
obvious position in law in taking a different
view. No notice under section 99 was given by
the High Court before making the final order
under Section 98 of the R.P. Act declaring the
election to be void. This is a fatal defect.
58.This alone is sufficient to indicate that apart
from the reasons given earlier, the election of the
appellant in the present case could not be
declared void by making an order under section
98 on the ground contained in Section 100(1)(b)
of the R.P. Act without prior compliance of
section 99. Absence of notice under Section 99
of the R.P. Act vitiates the final order made
under Section 98 by the High Court declaring the
election to be void.

6. Further, he relies on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Pramod Mahajan Vs. Smt. Celine D'Silva

and another reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 826. In

paragraph 12 of this judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court

explained the view taken in the case of Dwarka Prasad Mishra

(supra) and observed thus:-

The High Court appears to have misread the
decision of this Court in D.P. Mishra vs. Kamal
Narayan Sharma and Anr., 1971 (1) SCR 8, to
form the opinion that the course adopted by it
was permissible under Section 99 of the R.P.
Act. The question in that case was of the failure
to issue notice under Section 99 of the R.P. Act
to a person alleged to have committed the
corrupt practice for which the returned
candidate also was guilty. The High Court, in
the appeal, did not comply with the requirement
of section 99 for avoiding further delay. This
Court rejected that view as incorrect and held
as under :
"We are unable to agree with the view so
propounded by the High Court. Under section
99 of the Act the Court has no discretion in the
matter, if the Court was of the view that any
person who is proved at the trial to have been
guilty of any corrupt practice, not to name that
person. It is true that preliminary objections
were argued at an earlier stage, but Sharma
could not before the appeal was heard ask the
Court to issue a notice under section 99 of the
Act on the footing that his case which was
rejected by the Tribunal will be accepted. The
duty under the Act is cast upon the Court or the
Tribunal, and on the ground that the party has
not applied for a notice, the High Court could
not avoid the obligation imposed by statute to
take proceeding under section 99 against the
person proved at the trial to have been guilty of
corrupt practice and to name him. We fail also
to appreciate the ground on which the High
Court has referred to delay being an
"outweighing factor". Shyamacharan Shukla
was however not a party to the proceeding and
before he could be named a notice must go to
him under section 99 of the Act.

We direct that the proceeding be remanded to
the High Court and the High Court do give
notice to Shyamacharan Shukla under section
99 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, to appear and to show cause why he
should not be named for committing corrupt
practices. If Shyamacharan Shukla appears in
pursuance of the show cause notice he will be
entitled to an opportunity of cross- examining
witnesses who have already been examined by
the Tribunal and has given evidence against
him and he will be entitled to give evidence in
his defence and of being heard....."

There is nothing in this decision to support the
view taken by the High Court that it could
decide the election petition and make an order
under Section 98 declaring the election of the
returned candidate to be void and then proceed
under Section 99 of the R.P. Act against the
other persons.

7. Accordingly, as observed by by Hon'ble the Supreme Court

in the case of Pramod Mahajan (supra), notices are to be issued

during trial and not at conclusion of the trial as submitted by

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the

matter, the question is answered that notices are to be issued

during trial and when a particular witness is examined, who

deposes against a particular person involving him in commission
of corrupt practice then, the person should be given an

opportunity to cross examine the witness. After petitioner and

respondent close their evidence, these persons called the notices'

should be given an opportunity to adduce their evidence in

defence and finally while passing final order under section 98 of

the Act though persons, who proved to be guilty of corrupt

practice should be named under section 99 of the Act. In the

present case, following persons are named in the petition and,

therefore, they should be given notice:-

(i) Gajendra Singh Baghel

(ii) Vikram Verma

(iii) Ashok Jain

(iv) Sanjay Vaishnav

(v) Devendra Patel

(vi) Anku Agrawal

(vii) Vinod Soni

8. Petitioner is directed to supply necessary details and pay PF

for issuance of notices to these persons within a week under
section 99 of the Act. Alongwith the notice relevant portion of

the petition where allegations are made against the above

persons, should also be enclosed. Petitioner is directed to supply

copies of the relevant portion for service of notice.

9. This apart, the petitioner is directed to name any other

person to whom notice is to be issued. It is further observed that

apart from these persons if name of any other person would evolve

during recording of the evidence he will also be given notice

immediately after recording of evidence of that particular witness.

10. The question is answered, accordingly.

11. On 08.10.2015, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that he would file an application under Order 18

Rule 3(a) of CPC.

12. Office is directed to list the matter on 29.10.2015 for

consideration of the application filed by the petitioner under Order

18 Rule 3(a) of CPC.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MCRC No.8660/2015
14.10.2015
Shri I. Anwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory

bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -

Dhamnod, District - Dhar in Crime No.399/2015 under

sections 363, 344, 376 (2) (N) and 506 of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, on 10.07.2015, the

prosecutrix went behind her residence to answer call of

nature. There, it is alleged that co-accused Rama came and he

placed his hand on her mouth and threatened her that if she

raised cry, he would kill her. Thereafter, he took her to the

nearby jungle and to some other places and committed rape

on her. Husband of the prosecutrix lodged complaint of

missing person on 22.06.2015. On 02.08.2015, she appeared
in the police station and she was medically examined and

also her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.

In her statement given on 02.08.2015, there was no mention

of rape committed by the present applicant. However, on

04.08.2015, her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded, there she stated that co-accused Rama had physical

relationship with her by consent. However so far as the

present applicant is concerned, she further stated that when

she was taken to the house of the present applicant by co-

accused Rama, present applicant gave money to Rama to

bring liquor and meat and thereafter, present applicant and

also Amar Singh committed rape on her.

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant

is falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry by the

MLA of the area. He was also similarly falsely implicated in

many other cases by the MLA and he filed various paper

cuttings to substantiate his arguments. He further submits that
the prosecutrix was working as a Maid in the house of the

MLA and on his behest, she changed her statement on

04.08.2015 under section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the State opposed the application on the

ground that there are allegation of rape against the present

applicant. The crime is serious and against the society at

large and, therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted to

present applicant.

I have gone through the case diary and heard both the

parties.

It is true that there is improvement in her statement

recorded on 02.08.2015 and 04.08.2015. However, the effect

of improvement in her statements cannot be seen at this

stage, as they are not substantiative evidence and

accordingly, no benefit can be given to the present applicant.

Taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case, I find that no case is made out for
grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

The application is accordingly, dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8303/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed on
behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- City
Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.993/15 for the offence
punishable under section 394 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the incident took place
on 14.12.2014 when the complainant and his girlfriend Yashika
Tekwani went to worship Nalchha Mata Temple. They were
talking near a culvert and there, it is alleged that two persons
came on the motorcycle and committed loot on them. They also
inflicted injuries on the complainant and his girlfriend by lathi. A
golden chain weighing 15 gms was snatched from the neck of
Yashika Tekwani and also photo camera, purse etc were looted.
Present applicant was arrested on the information given by the
co-accused Iqbal and subsequently, on his own memorandum
under section 27 of the Evidence Act, some property including
chain was recovered ant this chain was identified by Yashika
Tekwani.
Counsel for the applicant submits that complainant is a
Press Photographer. He took advantage of being associated with
news media and influenced the police. He further submits that
while seizure memo was prepared, he accompanied the police
personnel and it appears from the photograph submitted by the
police alongwith the charge-sheet. He further submits that
charge-sheet has been filed in this case. There are no criminal
antecedents of the present applicant.
Counsel for the State opposed the application.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
Whether, the complainant had any influence over the police
during investigation, can only be asserted after recording of
evidence. At this stage, no adverse inference can be drawn.
Further, the chain seized on memorandum given by the present
applicant was identified by Yashika Tekwani. It is not alleged that
she also accompanied the complainant.
After going through the case diary and taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find
that no case is made out for grant of bail to the present applicant.
The application is accordingly, dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.1061/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the
matter, as the arguing counsel is not available today.
List in the week commencing 02.11.2015, as prayed.
Let record of the lower court be called for.
I.R. to continue.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
Cr.A. No.1109/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Arun Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.7012/2015.
Counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the
application with liberty to file fresh application alongwith
additional grounds.
Prayer is allowed.
The application is accordingly, dismissed, as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1338/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Banne Shah, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the lower court be called for.
Also heard on I.A. No.7498/2015, which is an
application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present
appellant namely - Vishnu S/o Rajmal Mewada.
The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
under:-
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section and Act Imprisonment Fine if deposited, Imprisonment
details in lieu of fine
354, 354-A, 354-C of 1 year Rs.1000/- 3 months
IPC
3(1)(11) of SC/ST 6 months Rs.500/- 1 month
(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
Vishnu is in jail, as he could not furnish bail and bond as
directed by the Court and he was not in financial position
to deposit the amount which he subsequently deposited.
Taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion of
the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and
he be released on bail for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 12.01.2016 and thereafter on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1372/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Bhimsen Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the lower court be called for.
Also heard on I.A. No.7645/2015, which is an
application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present
appellant namely - Ramkaran S/o Dhansingh Rajput.
The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
under:-
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section and Act Imprisonment Fine if deposited, Imprisonment
details in lieu of fine
294 of IPC and 6 months RI Rs.1000/- 15 months RI
section 3(1-r&S) of
SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act
341 and 323 of IPC Rs.500-500/- 7-7 days
imprisonment

Counsel for the appellant submits that jail sentence
of the appellant is suspended by the trial Court till
26.10.2015 and fine amount has been deposited.
Taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion of
the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and
he be released on bail for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 12.01.2016 and thereafter on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1396/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the lower court be called for.
Also heard on I.A. No.7740/2015, which is an
application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present
appellant namely - Lal Singh S/o Puttulal.
The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
under:-
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonmen Fine if Imprisonmen
t deposited, t in lieu of fine
details
420 IPC 2 years RI Rs.500/- 6 months RI
467 IPC 3 years RI Rs.500/- 9 months RI
468 IPC 3 years RI Rs.500/- 9 months RI
483 IPC 2 years RI Rs.500/- 6 months RI

Counsel for the appellant submits that jail sentence
of the appellant has been suspended by the trial Court till
30.10.2015 and fine amount has been deposited.
Taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion of
the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and
he be released on bail for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 12.01.2016 and thereafter on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.267/2005
14.10.2015
Appellant No.2 - Kailash S/o Mangilal is not present
before this Court today. He is not represented by any counsel.
Issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against
the appellant No.2 - Kailash S/o Mangilal, returnable for
12.01.2016.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.339/2010
14.10.2015
Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.8029/2012, which is an application
for conversion of this criminal revision into criminal appeal.
After due consideration, the application is allowed.
Office is directed to register this revision as MCRC for
grant of leave to appeal.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1196/2010
14.10.2015
Report on perpetual warrant issued as well as notice
issued to the surety Sajida Bee have not been received as yet.
Issue fresh non-bailable warrant and show cause notice
to the surety, returnable on 13.01.2016.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.124/2012
14.10.2015

Applicant Pappu S/o Umrao Bagri is not present before
the Court. None appeared on his behalf.
Issue bailable warrant against the applicant Pappu S/o
Umrao Bagri in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, returnable for
14.01.2016.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.457/2012
14.10.2015
Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Appellant -Saeed S/o Jamil is not present before the
Court today.
Counsel appearing on his behalf submits that inspite of
informing the appellant, he is not present before the Court
today.
Issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against
the appellant - Saeed S/o Jamil, returnable for 14.01.2016.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1188/2012
14.10.2015
None for the appellant.
Let the default pointed out by the office be removed
within a week.
List after a week.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.R. No.1370/2014
14.10.2015

Shri Ikram Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A. No.7712/2015, which is an application
for condonation of non-appearance of the present applicant -
Poonamchand S/o Rameshchand on 10.09.2015 before the
registry of this Court.
The applicant is present today before this Court. He has
been identified by the counsel.
After due consideration, the application is allowed. His
non-appearance on 10.09.2015 before the registry of this
Court is hereby condoned. He is directed to appear before the
registry of this Court on 06.01.2016 and thereafter on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in this
behalf.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
Cr.A. No.1490/2014
14.10.2015
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
appellant/State.
Issue fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/-
against the respondent, returnable on 14.01.2016.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1531/2014
14.10.2015
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
Rajesh S/o Mangilal Damor Bhil is not present today before
the Court, as his sister-in-law has expired and seeks a fix date
for his appearance before the Court.
He is directed to keep the appellant present before the
Court on 29.10.2015.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1694/2014
14.10.2015
Shri Pankaj Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Lokesh S/o Ranchhod is present today before
this Court. He has been identified by the counsel.
Counsel for the appellant also filed an application (I.A.
No.7940/2015) for condonation of his earlier non-
appearance on 10.09.2015.
After due consideration, the application is allowed. His
earlier non-appearance before the registry of this Court on
10.09.2015 is condoned. He is directed to appear before the
registry of this Court on 07.01.2016 and thereafter on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in this
behalf.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
Cr.A. No.1876/2014
14.10.2015
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
appellant/State.
As per the report received on bailable warrant issued
against the respondent, bailable warrant is duly served. Bail
paper has been received by the registry. However,
respondent is not present today.
Counsel appearing on his behalf submits that he would
appear before the registry of this Court on the next date given
by the Court.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to keep the
respondent present before the registry of this Court on
19.11.2015 and thereafter, on all subsequent dates as may
be fixed by the registry in this behalf.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1895/2014
14.10.2015
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that as per his
instruction and information, the appellant is in jail at
Rajasthan. He does not have complete details as to in which
jail the appellant has been lodged and seeks time to verify.
List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1920/2014
14.10.2015
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
appellant/State.
None for the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.6376/2015, which is an application
for deleting name of respondent No.2 - Haji Usman Gani, as
he has died on 31.03.2015. Copy of death certificate is also
enclosed with the application.
Counsel for the appellant/State submits that factum of
death of respondent No.2- Haji Usman Gani has been verified.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
It is directed that name of respondent No.2 - Haji
Usman Gani be deleted from the cause title of the appeal. Let
necessary amendment in this regard be incorporated within
two weeks.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7301/2014
14.10.2015
None for the applicants.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.
Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that no
compromise has been taken place between the parties.
List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8106/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is 2nd bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed
on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
After rejection of his first application, there is no change
in circumstances. Hence, this second application is not
tenable.
The application is accordingly, dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.8488/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Bhavgarh, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.258/15 for the
offence punishable under sections 394, 395 and 397 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the incident took
place on 11.06.2015 when the complainant Manoharlal Jain
was coming in a vehicle bearing registration No.MP-44-GA-
0199 which belongs to Rajendra Singh after selling his wheat,
gram and Soyabean. He was having Rs.1.5 lacs in his
possession. There, it is alleged that their vehicle was stopped
by two three persons, who were hiding their face with cloth,
threw chilly powder on them and then committed loot of
Rs.1.5 lacs.
Present applicant was arrested on the memorandum of
co-accused Lakhan in which it is stated that Rs.15,000/- fell
in share of the present applicant. However, after arrest, his
memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act was
prepared and only Rs.1500/- were recovered from his
possession.
Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has
been filed. Only Rs.1500/- were recovered. One motorcycle
which was alleged to have been used in commission of crime
was also seized from the present applicant. However,
registration number of this motorcycle was not mentioned in
the FIR.
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 is
allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand) 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.
The applicant 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.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8708/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8736/2015
14.10.2015
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Barwani, District - Barwani in Crime No.81/15 for the offence
punishable under sections 376 and 506 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the incident took
place on 10.04.2015 at about 10:00 am when the prosecutrix
was alone in her residence. She was washing utensils outside
her residence. It is alleged that present applicant came there,
placed his hand on her mouth, dragged her towards Durga
Mata Temple and there, he committed rape on her. He also
slapped her and gave blows by lathi.
Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no
definite opinion given by the doctor regarding rape. All the
injuries found on her body are simple in nature. No injury
was found on her private part.
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 is
allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand) 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.
The applicant 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.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8716/2015
13.10.2015
Shri Dharmendra Khanchandani, learned counsel for
the applicants.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned counsel for the

complainant.

Case diary is available.

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory

bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -

Barud, District - Khargone in Crime No.146/2015 under

sections 307, 120-B of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act.

According to the prosecution story, in the night of

02.09.2015 at about 2:00 am, complainant Kamal was

attacked by some unknown persons by firing over him

gunshot by 12 bore gun. The crime was registered. During

investigation, on source information, co-accused Dhekaliya
and Deva were arrested. From their possession, 12 bore gun

and some live cartridges were recovered. In their, discloser

memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, they

disclosed that they attacked on the complainant, as they were

paid Rs.50,000/- by the present applicant Shyam Patidar.

Thus, they were acting as hire assassin and attacked on the

complainant.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused.

Counsel for the State and complainant opposed the

application on the ground that it is a case under section 307

of IPC. Custodial interrogation is required against the present

applicant.

Counsel for the applicant submits that apart from the

discloser memo given by the co-accused under section 27 of

the Evidence Act, no other evidence is available against the

present applicant. Also, the complainant in this case filed an

affidavit in support of present applicant stating therein that
present applicant is suffering from mental ailment. He has no

dispute with the present applicant.

While dismissing the application, the 4th Additional

Sessions Judge observed that this affidavit cannot be taken in

to consideration at this stage.

In the considered opinion of this Court, this affidavit

cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. However,

looking to the evidence available against the present

applicant and also taking into consideration that he is

suffering from mental ailment, this 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.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty 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
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8770/2015
13.10.2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory

bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -

Depalpur, District - Indore in Crime No.330/2015 under

section 34(2) of MP Excise Act.

According to the prosecution story, on source

information, motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-10-BA-

2598 was intercepted by the police. The motorcycle was

being driven by Sabir Kha and in the gunny bags loaded on

the motorcycle, total 54 bulk liters of contraband country

liquor was found in his possession.

During investigation, on his discloser memo prepared

under section 27 of the Evidence Act, he informed the police

that he brought the contraband country liquor from the
present applicant. However, no legal evidence is available

against him at present.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused.

Counsel for the State opposes the application on the

ground that his custody shall be required, as it has to be

asserted from where he obtains the contraband country liquor

and supplies to various persons.

Counsel for the applicant submits that in the similar

case arising from the similar Police Station - Depalpur, he

was granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in MCRC No.8771/2015 vide order dated

05.10.2015.

However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

order of granting bail is based on the facts which do not have

value of precedence and, therefore, present case has to be

evaluated on merit. So far as the present case is concerned, it

is true that his custodial interrogation may be required for
asserting the source of the contraband country liquor.

As such, I find that no case is made out for grant of

anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

The application is accordingly, dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.A. No.2452/2014
13.10.2015
Shri VS Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mayank Upadhyay, counsel for the respondent
No.3/Insurance Company.
Heard finally.
Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.A. No.1371/2015
13.10.2015
Shri VS Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.
Shri RJ Pandit, counsel for the respondent
No.3/Insurance Company.
Heard finally.
Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9130/2015
13.10.2015
Shri LS Chandiramani, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted a
week's time to file criminal antecedents of the present
applicant.
List alongwith MCRC No.9078/2015 on 19.10.2015, as
prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9078/2015
13.10.2015
Shri LS Chandiramani, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted a
week's time to file criminal antecedents of the present
applicant.
List on 19.10.2015, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.1275/2014
13.10.2015
Shri Vivek Singh, counsel for the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
matter.
List after a week, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9608/2013
13.10.2015
Shri AS Garg, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Sapnesh Jain,
counsel for the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter may
be heard finally and disposed of at this stage.
Let the matter be listed in the week commencing
26.10.2015 for final disposal.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7770/2015
13.10.2015
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant
Lal Singh, eye witness.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
filed on behalf of the present applicants for grant of bail.
The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
Bhagwanpura, District - Khargone in Crime No.196/15 for the
offence punishable under sections 326, 325, 147, 149, 294,
341, 323 and 506-B of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the incident took
place on 08.06.2015 at about 8:00 pm. It is alleged that
present applicants alongwith other two co-accused Bhiyaram
and Bhairam armed with lathi, hockey stick and iron rod etc
inflicted grievous injuries on Kailash, Tikhla and Mahendra. It
is further alleged that accused Prakash inflicted injuries on
the right leg of Kailash by iron rod due to which, he suffered
fracture of femur bone.
Counsel for the applicants objects and submits that
objection cannot be filed on behalf of eye witness, who is
neither complainant nor he suffered injuries in the present
case.
The objection is accepted. Counsel for the objector is
disallowed to participate in the proceedings.
Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Counsel for the applicants submits that apart from the
accused Prakash, all other persons were not armed with
lethal weapons. The injured has been admitted in the hospital
and discharged after treatment.
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 is
allowed.
It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
directed in this regard during trial.
The applicants are further directed that on being so
released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7849/2015
13.10.2015
Shri BL Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the State is directed to call for the FSL
report in this case.
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8766/2015
13.10.2015
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a
week's time to file details of criminal cases pending against
the present applicant.
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.8773/2015
13.10.2015
Shri Sandeep Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the State prays for and is granted a week's
time to call for the criminal antecedents of the present
applicant.
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8854/2015
13.10.2015
Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Dahi, District - Dhar in Crime No.88/15 for the offence
punishable under section 354 and 354-A of IPC and under
section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.
Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix,
who was 14 years of age, was going to his maternal uncle's
place on 29.09.2015 when the present applicant caught hold
of her both hands, dragged her to one side of the road and
thereby tried to outrage her modesty.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there
was no intention of present applicant to do anything wrong
with the prosecutrix. He further submits that the prosecutrix
was also not of 14 years of age. Her age is more than that.
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 is
allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand) 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.
The applicant 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.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8969/2015
13.10.2015
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.9031/2015
13.10.2015
Shri Arun Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Shahar Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.512/15 for
the offence punishable under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act
for keeping in his possession 81 bulk liters of contraband
country liquor.
Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is
no criminal antecedents of the present applicant. He is falsely
implicated in the present case.
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 is
allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand) 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.
The applicant 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.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8270/2015
09.10.2015
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed against
the order passed by learned Special Judge under NDPS Act,
District - Neemuch in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2014 dated
14.07.2015.
The brief facts relevant for disposal of this case are that the
applicant filed an application before this Court under section 482
of Cr.P.C. in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order
dated 03.11.2014 issued following directions:-
Present petitioner is permitted to
withdraw the petition with a direction to the
trial Court to consider the averments and
points raised in the petition at the time of
framing of charge alongwith the averments
of charge-sheet.

Learned Special Judge passed the impugned order on
04.12.2014 apparently one month after the order passed by this
Court by which, learned Magistrate framed charges against the
present applicant, however, as directed by this Court, the
averments and points raised in the petition were not taken into
consideration. Thereafter, the applicant again filed an application
before learned Special Judge which was disposed of by order
dated 11.12.2014 stating therein that a criminal court had no
jurisdiction to review on its own order and, therefore, giving
liberty that the order may be challenged in the revision, the
application was dismissed.
Aggrieved by this order, the applicant again approached this
Court in the second round of litigation under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
which was disposed of by this Court in MCRC No.54/2015 vide
order dated 25.06.2015. In this order, following directions were
issued:-
In view of this observation and in the
light of the direction issued by this Court
earlier, this application is allowed. The
impugned order dated 04.12.2014 is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the
concerning Court with the direction that
learned Special Judge should reconsider the
matter and decide it in the light of the
direction issued by this Court earlier in
MCRC No.7577/2014.

After passing of this order, learned Special Judge passed the
impugned order on 14.07.2015 in which, he again opined that the
point raised by the respondent cannot be taken into consideration
at the stage of filing of charge-sheet and without taking them into
consideration, the impugned order was passed.
It is apparent that learned Special Judge has not taken into
consideration the averments and points raised by the applicant
and without taking into consideration the direction of this Court,
the order was passed and, therefore, it appears proper to set aside
the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Special
Court for reconsideration and pass suitable order as per the
direction issued by this Court.
Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. Learned Special Judge is directed to consider
the averments and points raised by the present applicant and
pass a suitable and detailed order this time.
In case, direction issued by this Court is not followed by the
Special Judge, the matter may be taken as contempt of Court and
necessary proceedings shall be initiated.
With the direction and observation as aforesaid, the
application stands disposed of.
Let copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble portfolio
Judge and also be sent to the Sessions Judge, Neemuch, for
consideration while writing Confidential Report of the concerning
officer.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8110/2015
09.10.2015
Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Dewas Gate, District - Ujjain in Crime No.30/2015 for the
offence punishable under sections 364, 365, 302 and 201/34
of IPC and under section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution story, in the intervening
night of 18th and 19th February, 2015 at about 01:00 am,
present applicant alongwith other co-accused committed
murder of deceased Sanjay @ Sanju Jhanjhot. Subsequently,
they threw the dead body of the deceased under the culvert
of Kalisindh river and also discharged mobile phone and
other items of the deceased after pouring petrol on it.
So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged
that he was also with the co-accused persons during
commission of crime.
Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially,
his name was not included in the accused persons, however,
on memorandum of co-accused, present applicant was
arrested and then, on 10.05.2015, statement of Manish Rai
was recorded in which, he stated that he saw present
applicant also with the other co-accused, while they were
committing the murder. He further submits that no
justification was given why statement of this witness was not
recorded on 10.05.2015. He further submits that similarly,
statement of Anil Thakur was recorded on 13.03.2015 and in
his statement also, no explanation was given why his
statement was not recorded immediately after the incident.
I have gone through the case diary.
There are two witnesses, who confirmed presence of
the present applicant with the co-accused persons. Merely
because, there statements were recorded with some delay, at
this stage, no benefit can be given to the present applicant.
This apart, blood stained clothes were also recovered on his
discloser memo. In the considered opinion of this Court, no
case is made out for grant of bail to the present applicant.
The application is accordingly, dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8827/2015
09.10.2015
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the
objector.
Case diary is available.
This is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
for grant of bail.
Their first application was dismissed, as withdrawn in
MCRC No.6100/2015 vide order dated 23.07.2015 after
arguing the matter for some time. Their second application
was dismissed in MCRC No.6145/2015 vide order dated
21.08.2015. Their second application was dismissed, as it was
filed only after five days of withdrawing the first application,
which was not found proper and liberty was granted to the
present applicants to file afresh application to be considered
on merit after filing of the charge-sheet. Accordingly, this
third application is filed availing the liberty granted by this
Court to the applicant after filing of the charge-sheet.
Counsel for the Objector raised preliminary objection
that once the application is dismissed, second application is
not maintainable, unless there should be a substantial change
in the circumstances and not cosmetic change. For this, he
cites judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao
reported in SCC-1989-SUPP2-605. But the principle laid
down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the present
case. In that case, three consecutive applications were
dismissed on merit and, therefore, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court laid down the above principle.
However, in this case, earlier two applications were not
considered on merit and also, while dismissing the second
application, liberty was granted to the applicants to file
afresh application after charge-sheet is filed. In this view of
the matter, I find that this third application is maintainable.
The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
Kalapipal, District - Shajapur in Crime No.250/15 for the
offence punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294,
323 and 325 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the incident took
place on 26.06.2015 at about 11:00 pm. The dispute arose on
the way between two fields. The co-accused Mansingh
challenged complainant to come on his land and they were
waiting for him. Thereafter, accused persons went and
started started using abusive language against him. When
Leeladhar came to intervene, he was given blow by Farsi on
his head.
Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is
a counter case also registered. He further submits that
charge-sheet has been filed and present applicants are not
required for investigation.
Counsel for the objector, however, submits that two
persons suffered more than ten injuries in this case and there
is a dispute between two sections of same village and if bail is
granted to the present applicants, the dispute may again take
place.
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 is
allowed.
It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
directed in this regard during trial.
The applicants are further directed that on being so
released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.1162/2015
09.10.2015

Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard finally.
Reserved for order.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.6633/2015
09.10.2015

Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
This application is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
modification in the order passed in MCRC No.3399/2015 dated
19.06.2015 by which, it was ordered that the applicant should
surrender before the concerning court within fifteen days from
getting certified copy of this order and subject to applicant's
surrender, the Criminal Revision No.673/2013 was restored to
its original number.
Now by this application, it is sought that the condition
imposed in the earlier order be suitably amended and the
revision be restored without surrender by the present applicant.
I have heard counsel for the applicant.
After due consideration, no case is made out for
modification in the aforesaid order. The application is
accordingly, dismissed.
The applicant is given a liberty to surrender before the
concerning court in next fifteen days after receipt of certified
copy of this order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.7176/2015
09.10.2015

Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent(s) on payment of PF
within a week, returnable within four weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.7677/2015
09.10.2015

Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
As directed by the Court vide order dated
18.09.2015, case diary of Crime Nos.866/2015 and
867/2014 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj,
District - Indore, are not available today.
Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel submits that he
would file power on behalf of Dr. DK Sharma, who is
complainant in this case.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to call for
both the case diaries positively on the next date of
hearing.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants
prays that the proceedings in Sessions Trial No.103/2015
pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore,
be stayed.
On due consideration, prayer is allowed.
It is directed that till the next date of hearing, the
proceedings in Sessions Trial No.103/2015 shall remain
stayed.
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MCRC No.7762/2015
09.10.2015

Shri Harish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks' time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8068/2015
09.10.2015

Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks' time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8157/2015
09.10.2015

Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents No.A to E on
payment of PF within a week, returnable within four
weeks.
Meanwhile, the proceedings in Criminal Case
No.227/2013 pending before learned JMFC, Hatod,
District - Indore, shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8284/2015
09.10.2015

Shri AS Garg, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Piyush
Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that he would
implead the complainant as respondent No.2 in this case.
Prayer is allowed.
He is directed to file an appropriate application within a
week.
List after a week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8286/2015
09.10.2015
Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/State.
Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of PF
within a week, returnable within four weeks.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8697/2015
09.10.2015
Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

This is third application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The main ground taken by counsel for the applicant is that

present applicant is under custody for the last one year and still,

there is no progress in trial, as other co-accused are not arrested

so far. He further submits that other co-accused granted bail under

section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the present applicant remains in

custody though, he is not the main accused in the case.

Let a report be called from the Sessions Judge, Indore. He

may be requested to go through the record of the case and submit

his report alongwith the reasons for delay in the present case. He

may further be requested to submit his comments as to time frame

within which, trial in this case shall be over.

List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
CRR No.381/2015
09.10.2015
Shri KP Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Report of the Probation Officer has not been

received as yet. On 23.09.2015 also, last opportunity was

granted to counsel for the State to call for the report of

Probation Officer.

List int the next week with clear understanding that

if report of the Probation Officer is not produced before

the Court, the matter shall be decided on merit.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRA No.1293/2015
09.10.2015
Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

In this case, trial court has suspended jail sentence

of the appellant upto 25.09.2015 after which, it was not

clear whether the accused had surrender before the trial

court.

Today, counsel for the appellant submits order-

sheet of the lower court dated 05.10.2015, according to

which, the appellant surrendered before the trial court and

he was taken into custody and sent to the jail for

undergoing the remaining sentence awarded to him.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of jail

sentence and grant of bail is now considered.

Heard on I.A. No.7263/2015.
This is first application under section 389(1) of

Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant - Rambabu for

suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as

under:-
CONVICTION SENTENCE

Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
341 IPC Nil Rs.500/- 15 days
354-A IPC 6 months RI Rs.5000/- 3 months

Taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case, without commenting on the

merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed

that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent

surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial

court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion

of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended
and he be released on bail for his appearance before the

Registry of this Court on 11.01.2016 and thereafter on all

subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this

behalf.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.9029/2015
09.10.2015
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
bail.

The applicants apprehend their arrest by Police Station

- Chhapiheda, Tehsil - Biaora, District - Rajgarh in Crime

No.172/2014 under sections 294, 323, 506/34 and 436 of

IPC.

According to the prosecution story, present applicants

were earlier arrested in the same crime number under

sections 294, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. They were granted bail

by the Magistrate. However, subsequently, section 436 of

IPC was added and now, present applicants apprehend their

arrest as trial under section 436 is sessions trial and the

Magistrate does not have power to grant bail under this

section.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused.

Counsel for the State opposes the application.

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into

consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case,
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

applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants

shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a

personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only)

each and a solvent surety each 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 they shall make themselves available for interrogation

by a police officer as and when required.

(ii) that they 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 they would comply with the conditions enumerated

under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8569/2015
08.10.2015
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C

for grant of bail.

His first application was dismissed on merit in MCRC

No.128/2015 vide order dated 13.03.2015 on medical ground

and also on the ground that daughter of the present applicant

died recently. His second application for grant of temporary

bail was dismissed in MCRC No.3516/2015 vide order dated
25.06.2015. In the second application, it was directed that if

the present applicant wishes to get himself operated in a

private hospital and if he deposits necessary amount with the

jail authorities as per the estimate given by the concerning

hospital, he may be admitted in the hospital under the

security and necessary operation may be performed on him.

Now, this third application is filed on the ground that

when the hospital authorities, where the present applicant

wants to get himself operated, were contacted by the family

members of the present applicant, they informed that they

could not give any estimate unless the patient is examined.

Therefore, counsel for the applicant prays that present

applicant be released on temporary bail for fifteen days so

that he may get himself examined and necessary estimate be

prepared.

Counsel for the CBN submits that for the examination,

he may be taken to the hospital under security and after
examination, necessary estimate can be prepared.

After taking into consideration rival contentions

putforth by both the counsels, it is directed that the present

applicant be taken to a private hospital, where he wants to get

himself operated under proper security and after his

examination by the doctors, he be re-lodged in jail. It is

further directed that after estimate is prepared, directions

issued in the earlier order would operate.

C.c. as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8324/2015
08.10.2015
Shri Anshuman Shrivastav, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Smt Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.
Case diary is available.

This is second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for

grant of temporary bail.

This second application is filed on the ground that son of

the present applicant is suffering from rare disease known as

"Krabbe disease". It is advised by the doctor that child should be

taken to Mumbai or Delhi and should be treated by the specialist

doctors, who are not available at Indore. Counsel for the

applicant has filed medical papers of the child with the

application, which were duly verified. As per the report, the child

is suffering from serious disease of brain and he is advised by the

doctors to be taken to Mumbai for further treatment.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

After taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case and the medical condition of the child

of present applicant, the application for grant of temporary bail is

allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on temporary
bail for the period of thirty days from the date of his release on

his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty

Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial Judge. The trial Judge is directed to fix a

date for his surrender before the Court depending upon his

release from jail.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

application stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8552/2015
08.10.2015
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- City

Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.502/15 for the offence

punishable under sections 323, 344, 365, 347, 384, 386 and 506

of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, on 26.07.2015 abductee

Tarachand Gandhi went to a Tea Stall for having tea. There, it is

alleged that present applicant alongwith co-accused Mahesh and

his maternal uncle came in Bolero vehicle and they forcibly took

abductee Tarachand Gandhi to village Khanderiyamaru and kept

him there tied. By threatening him, they pressurized him to

execute power of attorney for transfer of his revenue land and a

house. For making his voter I.D. Card, they took him to

Mandsaur Court and there, they completed formalities for making

of Voter I.D. Card. They also got sale deed executed in favour of

Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar. It is further alleged that prior to the

incident also, they took Rs.40,000/- from abductee Tarachand

Gandhi on the promise that they would sale him Nano Car but the
Car was not given to him.

Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application

on the ground that present applicant took law into his hand and

then forcibly got the sale deed of the land executed in favour of

Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it was a civil

dispute. Present applicant and said Tarachand Gandhi had some

financial dealings with each other and some money was due with

Tarachand Gandhi. Due to this reason, he was falsely implicated

in the case. According to him, he voluntarily executed the sale

deed in favour of Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar.

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 is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand)
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.

The applicant 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.

C.c. as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8837/2015
08.10.2015
Shri Rohit Shindey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter

as the arguing counsel is not available today.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
MCRC No.8858/2015
08.10.2015
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Mamta Shandily, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.

List on 13.10.2015.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.731/2015
08.10.2015
Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.

Service report on notice sent to the respondent has

not been received as yet.

List after a week alongwith service report.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

CRR No.732/2015
08.10.2015
Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.

Service report on notice sent to the respondent has

not been received as yet.

List after a week alongwith service report.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
CRR No.1276/2015
08.10.2015
Shri SK Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

The revision is admitted for final hearing.

Let record of the lower court be called for.

Also heard on I.A. No.7593/2015, which is an application

under section 397(1) read with Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for

suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of

present applicant namely - Montu S/o Heeralal.

The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-

CONVICTION SENTENCE

Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
457 and 380 IPC 1 year RI Rs.300/- -
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in

jail.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of

the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, the

application is allowed. It is directed that if, the present applicant

furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty

Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial court, subject to payment of fine, the

remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be

suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before

the Registry of this Court on 07.01.2016 and thereafter on all

subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
CRR No.914/2011
08.10.2015
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants.

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.6716/2015, which is an application

filed under section 320 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C.

It is submitted that parties have entered into

compromise. All the five applicants and the injured persons
namely - Brajmohan S/o Banshilal, Vikram Singh S/o

Banshilal and Jamna Bai W/o Banshilal are present today

before this Court. On asking, they submit that they have

entered into compromise without any coercion or duress.

The applicants have been convicted for the offence

punishable under sections 325/34 and 324/34 of IPC and

have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years each.

Section 324 is compoundable before 31.12.2010. In this case,

the incident took place on 06.02.2008, therefore, at the time

of incident, offence was compoundable.

Taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. The

applicants are discharged from the charges under sections

325/34 and 324/34 of IPC. Their bail and bonds also stand

discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the

applicants be returned to them.

Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8924/2015
08.10.2015
Shri Praveen Newalkar, learned counsel for the

applicants.

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory

bail.

The applicant apprehend his arrest by Police Station -

Kukshi, District - Dhar under sections 366, 506 and 376 of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, the incident took

place on 01.09.2014 when the prosecutrix and her brother was

going in a Magic Vehicle, about 22 persons came there in
another vehicle and it is alleged that they forcibly took the

prosecutrix with them and co-accused Raju Chouhan, who was

handicapped and to whom, the prosecutrix got married under

Arya Samaj customs, committed rape on her.

So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged

that co-accused Raju Chouhan and the prosecutrix stayed in the

house of the present applicant for some time.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused.

Counsel for the State opposes the application.

Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Raju

Chouhan has already granted bail by the Court below. He

further submits tha present applicant is a government servant

and the only allegation against him is that co-accused Raju

Chouhan and the prosecutrix stayed in his house for some

time.

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into

consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case,

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

applicants. 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.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty 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
Kratika/-

MCRC No.8946/2015
08.10.2015
Case diary is not available.

List in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8852/2015
07.10.2015
Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Shri Ali Hussain, learned counsel for the objector.

Case diary is available.
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C

for grant of bail.

The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-

Nalkheda, District - Agar in Crime No.185/15 for the offence

punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 & 506 IPC.

According to the prosecution story, the incident took

place on 14.07.2015. The dispute arose due to passing

through the fields of complainant and then it is alleged that

present applicants have inflicted injury to Shahrukh Khan,

Rajjak Khan and Babu Khan by lathi. Babu Khan sustained

injury on his head with corresponding fracture of skull bone.

Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.

Learned counsel for the State and Objector opposed the

bail application. Learned counsel for the Objector submits

that on being released from jail, accused persons will

threaten them. They used abusive language against them.

They further said that as soon as their brothers come out of
the jail, they will drive them away from the village. They

apprehend that they are going to commit serious offence

against them.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that charge

sheet has been filed in this case and injured has been

discharged from hospital. Present applicants are not required

by the Police for investigation. He further submits that a

cross case is also registered at Crime No.186/15 against the

complainant party. He further submits that co-accused

persons granted bail in MCRC Nos.7951/2015 and

8253/2015 vide order dated 09.09.2015 and 28.09.2015

respectively. The case of the present applicants is not

different than that of co-accused, who were granted bail,

therefore, on the principle of parity, he prays that bail should

be granted to the present applicants. He further submits that

apprehension of the objector is baseless. No case was

registered by the police and only to keep the applicants in
jail, a false complaint was lodged by the complainant.

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 is

allowed.

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on

their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty

Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for

their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be

directed in this regard during trial.

The applicants are further directed that on being so

released on bail, they would comply with the conditions

enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.

C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7768/2015

07.10.2015
Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the

respondent/State.

Case diary and case file are not available with counsel

for the State.

List in the next week, as prayed.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

Cr.A. No.929/2009

07.10.2015
The appellant is not produced before the Court today.
Issue fresh production warrant for his appearance

before the Court on 27.11.2015.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6615/2015

07.10.2015
Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, learned counsel for the

applicant.

None for the respondent.

As prayed, list in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6681/2015
07.10.2015
Shri VS Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of

Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.

Perused the impugned judgment.

After due consideration, the application is allowed.

Leave to appeal is granted.

Office is directed to register this as regular criminal

appeal and proceed.

C.c as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6911/2015

07.10.2015
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant.

List alongwith MCRC No.6910/2015.
( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.6938/2015

07.10.2015
None for the applicant.

List after three weeks.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7511/2015

07.10.2015
Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of

Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.

Perused the impugned judgment.
After due consideration, the application is allowed.

Leave to appeal is granted.

Office is directed to register this as regular criminal

appeal and proceed.

C.c as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7655/2015

07.10.2015
Shri MK Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant.

He seeks time to file some additional documents.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7733/2015
07.10.2015
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of

Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.

Perused the impugned judgment.

After due consideration, the application is allowed.

Leave to appeal is granted.

Office is directed to register this as regular criminal

appeal and proceed.

C.c as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7822/2015

07.10.2015
Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard on the question of admission.
This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is

directed against the judgment passed by learned 3rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in 01/2015 dated

10.07.2015 by which learned Additional Sessions judge

dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant under

section 372 of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment passed by

learned JMFC in Criminal Case No.96/2012 dated

13.11.2014 acquitting the respondents.

I have gone through the impugned judgment passed in

appeal as well as the judgment of learned Magistrate.

Both the courts below concurrently reached to the same

conclusion and acquitted the accused persons. At this stage,

no case is made out against the respondents using extra

ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under section

482 of Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly, dismissed.

C.c as per rules.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7837/2015

07.10.2015
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.

No.6643/2015, an application for stay.

On payment of PF within a week, issue notice against

admission as well as of aforesaid I.A. to the non-applicants

by registered post as well as by ordinary mode.

Meanwhile, further proceedings pending before the trial

Court in Criminal Case No.41/2005 shall remain stayed till

the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be fixed after four weeks alongwith

MCRC Nos.7739/2015, 7744/2015, 7835/2015, 7905/2015

7893/2015 and 7892/2015 for analogous hearing.

C.c as per rules.
( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7966/2015

07.10.2015
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.

No.6757/2015, an application for stay.

On payment of PF within a week, issue notice against

admission as well as of aforesaid I.A. to the non-applicants

by registered post as well as by ordinary mode.

Meanwhile, further proceedings pending before the trial

Court in Criminal Case No.42/2005 shall remain stayed till

the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be fixed after four weeks alongwith

MCRC Nos.7739/2015, 7744/2015, 7893/2015 and

7892/2015 for analogous hearing.

C.c as per rules.
( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7882/2015

07.10.2015
Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent

/State.

Counsel for the applicant submits that other two co-

accused persons, who are arraigned as accused in the same

crime number, the FIR was quashed by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in MCRC No.6151/2015 and prays that

matter be listed before the Bench which passed the earlier

order.

Office is directed to examine the matter and list it

before the appropriate Bench.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-
M.Cr.C. No.7894/2015

07.10.2015
As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list in the next

week.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7914/2015

07.10.2015
Shri KK Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent

/State.

Let record of Criminal Case No.490/2005 disposed of

by learned JMFC, Shajapur dated 22.09.2006 under section

325 of IPC be called for.

List under the same category alongwith the record of

the lower court.

( Alok Verma)
Judge
Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.2526/2015

07.10.2015
Shri Sudeep Bhargav, learned counsel for the

respondent.

This is an enquiry under section 340 of Cr.P.C. The
facts which necessitated this enquiry are that Professor

Chintaman Malviya (hereinafter referred to as the

'respondent') is returned candidate from Lok Sabha

Constituency No.2, Ujjain (M.P.) in general election of Lok

Sabha held in the month of March-April, 2014. An Election

Petition was filed against the respondent challenging his

election to Lok Sabha which was registered as Election

Petition No.33/2014. In this petition, notice was issued to the

respondent bearing No.1762 dated 12.08.2014. Notice was

sent to the District Judge, Ujjain, for service upon the

respondent. The notice was served by process server Shri

Arun Bhalerao on 16.08.2014 personally on the respondent.

2. However, respondent remained absent before the

Election Judge and, therefore, Election Petition filed against

him proceeded ex-parte. Subsequent to this, he filed an

application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the

ex-parte order passed against him. In support of the
application, he filed an affidavit stating therein that the notice

was served on his staff while he was busy in the ongoing

session of the Parliament. When he came back to Ujjain, he

came to know about the notice when it was placed before

him and thereafter, immediately, he proceeded to take

necessary action for setting aside of the ex-parte order. When

this application is filed by respondent, the applicant filed I.A.

No.1303/2015 under section 340 of Cr.P.C. stating therein

that respondent made false statement in the affidavit and

thereby he committed offence under section 193 of IPC and

he further prayed that suitable action be taken against the

respondent.

3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to which the

Election Petition was assigned, passed an order dated

24.03.2015 on the application. In para 8 and 9 of the order,

the Co-ordinate Bench observed as under:-
(8) So far as the application of petitioner is
concerned, prima facie it seems that the
respondent No.1 himself has received the notice
of this petition on 16.08.2014 whereas, on oath
he stated that he received the notice of this
petition on 25.01.2015 through his employee.
This controversy can be resolved only after the
enquiry, therefore, the Principal Registrar of this
Bench is directed to register a Misc. Criminal
Case under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the
respondent No.1and initiate the enquiry and after
making due enquiry if he finds that respondent
NO.1 has filed a false affidavit in support of I.A.
No.927/2015 then file a private complaint against
respondent No.1 before the competent
Magistrate. Thus, the application (I.A.
No.1303/2015) is allowed.
(9) Reader is directed to send the photocopy of
this order alongwith the original second copy of
notice of respondent No.1 and service report of
process server in a sealed envelope for
compliance of the order to Principal Registrar of
this Bench. Whereas, the photocopy of the notice
and service report of process server be kept with
this record.
4. The enquiry was assigned to the Principal Registrar of

this Bench of High Court. However, it was pointed out by the

registry that under section 340 of Cr.P.C., enquiry should

have been conducted by the Court itself and, therefore, by
order dated 30.06.2015, this Court modified earlier order

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and directed the registry to

place the matter before the Court for conducting enquiry.

5. During the enquiry, statements of process server Arun

Bhalerao was recorded on 09.09.2015. He confirmed that he

served notice bearing No.1762 dated 12.08.2014 on the

respondent personally and also respondent signed it before

him. He was also cross examined by counsel for the

respondent. In his statement, he also stated that on that day,

another process server of Ujjain District Court, Bharat Singh

Chouhan was also on beat on that particular day and he was

with him when notice was served. He witnessed that notice

was served personally on the respondent. Subsequently,

statement of Bharat Singh Chouhan was also recorded and he

confirmed in his statement that notice was served personally

on the respondent.

6. After recording the statements and taking into
consideration the served notice bearing No.1762 dated

12.08.2014 and enclosed hukmnama, it is apparent that

notice was served personally on the respondent while in the

affidavit, he mentioned that notice was served on his staff.

7. Counsel for the respondent cited judgment of Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Chhaju Ram Vs. Radhey

Shyam reported in 1971 Law Suit (SC) 204. In para 7 of the

Judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed here as

under:-
(6)--------------------------------------------------------
(7) The prosecution for perjury should be
sanctioned by courts only in those cases where
the perjury appears to be deliberate and
conscious and the conviction is reasonably
probable or likely. No doubt giving of false
evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil
which must be effectively curbed with a strong
hand but to start prosecution for perjury too
readily and too frequently with,out due care and
caution and on inconclusive and doubtful
material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution
should be ordered when it is considered
expedient in the interests of justice to punish the
delinquent and not merely because there is some
inaccuracy in the statement which may be
innocent or immaterial. There must be prima
facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of
substance and the court should be satisfied that
there is reasonable foundation for the charge.
-----------------------------------------------------------

8. It is to be seen whether, it is in the interest of justice to punish the respondent whether, such lapses on his part are immaterial and innocent.

9. Counsel for the respondent argues that it was unintentional mistake on the part of the respondent and, therefore, no action should be taken against him.

10. In my considered opinion, however, more cautious and responsible approach was expected from the respondent being representative of people and professor himself. He is expected to understand the consequences of not appearing before the Court of law and specially before the High Court. Therefore, in this case, lenient and sympathetic view is not called for. In this view of the matter, I find that prosecution for perjury should be initiated against the respondent.

11. The Principal Registrar of this Court is authorised under section 195 (1)(b)(i) to file complaint in the concerning court of Magistrate. The Principal Registrar is directed to draft the complaint and place it before the Court for approval.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

MCRC No.7616/2015 06.10.2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is second 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 - Industrial Area, Jaora, District - Ratlam in Crime No.153/2015 under sections 307, 394, 341 and 506 of IPC.

According to the prosecution, present applicant alongwith other co-accused committed loot on the complainant Brajmohan and Babu. They also fired gunshot due to which, the complainant sustained some injuries. The present applicant alongwith the other co-accused, it is alleged, fled away from the spot. The matter was reported to the police station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District - Ratlam on which Crime No.152/2015 was registered. Thereafter, the Station Incharge of police station alongwith Constable Deepak Bhuria accompanied by complainant Brajmohan, Babu and Mohammad Anwar went out in search of the miscreants. They were told that three motorcycles went towards village Barkhedi and when they were going towards village Barkhedi, they saw four persons on three motorcycles. Present applicant was also there. When they were challenged by the police party, they opened gun fire on them. Nobody from the police party sustained any injury, however, in return, the police party also opened fire on them due to which, present applicant sustained injuries on his both thighs. Subsequently, present applicant and another co-accused Sunil were arrested.

This second application is filed on the ground that nd

(i) co-accused Sunil was granted bail by 2 Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that in the earlier part of prosecution story, in which present applicant allegedly committed loot on the complainant, co-accused Sunil was not identified by the complainant. (ii) There were four accused persons according to the prosecution story. However, during investigation, two accused persons fled away. The police did not take any action to trace the persons, who fled away from the spot and (iii) The prosecution witnesses Ghanshyam @ Kalu, Babulal and Mohd. Anwar gave affidavits in which they denied that any incident took place with them.

In this case, the incident took place in two parts. In the first part, loot was committed on the complainant and his companion Babu. In the second part, when the matter was reported to the police, the police tried to chase accused persons and then, it is said that present applicant fired gunshot which did not hit any of the police man but when the police fired in reply, present applicant sustained gunshot injuries. Two separate First Information Reports were prepared for Crime Nos.152/2015 and 153/2015.

Counsel for the applicant submits that as case of the co- accused Sunil is similar to the present applicant, present applicant should also be granted bail.

nd I have gone through the orders passed by learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge.

It is unfortunate that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider whether, case of the co-accused was similar to present applicant while bail application of the present applicant was dismissed by this Court on merits. There was no occasion for learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant bail to the co-accused, who was similarly placed. This apart, taking the affidavits filed by certain prosecution witnesses into consideration, is also not called for at this stage.

On merits, it is admitted that present applicant suffered gunshot injuries during the incident which shows his presence on the spot. The other co-accused, who was granted bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, was named in the FIR and was identified by witnesses. The police, who went in search of the culprits, was an eye witness and even if some prosecution witnesses turned hostile, statements of the police in this case, cannot be disbelieved merely because they are police personnels. When the police personnels are eye witnesses, their statements must be examined like that of interested witnesses. But they are competent witnesses and their statements cannot be rejected on the face of it.

In this view of the matter, I find no change in the circumstances. This second application is not tenable, liable to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar cum P.P.S. to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to place the same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary directions and suitable action.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7959/2015 06.10.2015 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State.

This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. Counsel for the applicant fairly submits that in this case, quantity of the contraband involved is commercial quantity, therefore, bar created by section 37 of NDPS Act shall operate. He further submits that looking to the period of custody of present applicant, which is about 2 years and 7 months, direction be issued to the trial Judge for expeditious conclusion of the trial.

Prayer is allowed.

The application is accordingly, dispose of with direction to the trial Judge to decide the case, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If trial is not concluded within the period specified, present applicant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail.

With the aforesaid direction and liberty, the application stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.7987/2015 06.10.2015 Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is 1st 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 - Raoji Bazar, District - Indore in Crime No.249/2015 under section 34 of MP Excise Act for keeping in her possession 57.6 bulk liters of contraband country liquor.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that as per the report received from the concerning police station, present applicant is a habitual offender and dealing with in contraband country liquor though, there is no crime registered against her apart from the present case.

Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is a lady and falsely implicated in the case.

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 on the condition that after being released on bail, she will not indulge in any kind of criminal activities whatsoever.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail subject to the aforesaid condition and on her 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 her appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.

She is further directed that on being so released on bail, she would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.

In case of breach of the aforesaid condition of this bail order, the bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled without reference to this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8038/2015 06.10.2015 Shri Lokendra Gangarekar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State. This is second application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No.5090/2015 vide order dated 07.08.2015.

After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the application and prays that direction be issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible.

Prayer is allowed.

The application is dismissed, as withdrawn with direction to the trial Judge to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Certified copy as per rules.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8041/2015

06.10.2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant.

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - Ingoriya, District - Ujjain in Crime No.312/2015 under sections 341, 294, 323, 506/34 and 376 (D)/34 of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, the incident took place on 21.06.2015 when the prosecutrix went to attend call of nature at about 08.30 in the night. It is alleged that present applicant alongwith two other co-accused caught hold of her and committed gang rape on her. Thereafter, they also threatened her that if she disclose the incident to anybody, they would kill her.

When the matter was reported on 21.06.2015, there was no mention of committing rape with her in the FIR. In her statement recorded on 22.06.2015 also, there was no such allegation of rape. However, her statement was again recorded on 24.06.2015 then, she added the incident of rape. She was medically examined in which some bruises on both her thighs and no other injury was found. In her statement made under section 164 of Cr.P.C. also which was recorded on 24.06.2015, she narrated the whole incident, as she narrated under section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only one accused Govind was named in the FIR. However, in her statements made under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that she knew all the accused persons.

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 Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8144/2015 06.10.2015 Shri Anupam Chouhan, counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State. Counsel for the State seeks time to argue the matter, as statement of prosecutrix under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is not available in the case diary.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8188/2015 06.10.2015 Case diary is not available.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8219/2015 06.10.2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant.

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - Lalghati, District - Shajapur in Crime No.02/2015 under sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and under section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.

According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix, who was aged about 17 years and 7 months at the time of incident, went missing. Subsequently, she was recovered from possession of the present applicant. In her statement made under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she did not support case of the prosecution and stated that she was married to the present applicant and went with him with her own free will. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the Ossification Test, age of the prosecutrix was assessed to be 18 to 19 years. He further submits that she was major at the time of the incident. She went with the present applicant with her own consent, therefore, no case is made out against the present applicant.

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 Kratika/-

MCRC No.6967/2015 05.10.2015 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

This is second application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. Their first application was dismissed, as withdrawn in MCRC No.4922/2015 vide order dated 22.06.2015. A liberty was granted to the present applicants to surrender before the trial Court and direction was given to the trial Court to decide the application of regular bail, as expeditiously as possible.

This second application is filed on the ground that there is subsequent change in the circumstances. The present applicants found in possession of Compact Disk in which brother of the deceased Dheeraj gave statement to the TV Channel that the deceased committed suicide when the police came in search of him, as complaint was lodged against him by one Pinky Sen. However, such statements given to a news channel or news published in the news paper do not form any change in the circumstances. Instead of availing the liberty granted by this Court, this second application is filed.

Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicants. The application is not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

MCRC No.8184/2015 05.10.2015 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/State.

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicants apprehend their arrest in Criminal Complaint No.586/2015 pending before learned JMFC, Shujalpur under section 467, 468, 420 and 120-B of IPC.

As per the allegations made in the complaint, present applicants sold the land in joint ownership of the complainant and the present applicants and conspiring with the accused No.1- Ramesh. They also got the land mutated in their names.

Respondent No.2 was served notice of this application but he failed to appear before the Court.

Counsel for the applicants submits that initially learned JMFC refused to take cognizance on the ground that it is purely a civil matter, however the complainant filed revision of the order and on the direction of the revisional court, cognizance was taken. According to them, it is a case based on the documentary evidence. There is no chance of the present applicants' absconding, therefore, bail may be granted to the present applicants.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused. Counsel for the State opposes the application. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case, 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 applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each and a solvent surety each 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 they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(ii) that they 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 they would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

MCRC No.8565/2015 05.10.2015 Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent/EOW.

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicants apprehend their arrest by Police Station - Economic Offences Wing, District - Indore in Crime No.35/2012 under sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, present applicants were office bearers of the Co-operative Housing Society. They purchased some agricultural land in the year 1987. According to the prosecution, they purchased land by the Cooperative Society in contravention of Nagar Bhoomi (Seema Evam Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1976. Subsequently, about 2 and half acre of the land was sold by the society and the society earned profit of Rs.7,00,000/-. According to the prosecution, profit earned by the society was not distributed by the office bearer to members of the society and they also did not alloted the land which remained in possession of the society.

According to the applicants, charge-sheet was filed under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, however, taking the present applicants are agents of the members of the society, the Magistrate took cognizance under section 409 of IPC.

Arguments heard. Case diary perused. Counsel for the State opposes the application. Counsel for the applicants submits that the matter began in the year 1987 when the land was purchased. There is no likelihood of the present applicants' absconding, as they are not habitual offenders and they are reputed persons of the society. The matter is based on the record and their presence is not required for investigation or for custodial interrogation.

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case, 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 applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(ii) that they 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 they would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.5771/2015 05.10.2015 Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant.

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - Jawad, District - Neemuch in Crime No.488/2014 under sections 8/18 (B), 29 of NDPS Act.

According to the prosecution story, present applicant was travelling in car which belongs to co-accused, who was driving the car. From the gates of the car, inside the panels, there were secret chambers from which total 15 kg of the contraband Opium was recovered.

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is a handicapped person. He has filed necessary documents to show that he is handicapped.

However, verification could not be done by counsel for the State. Still, he fairly admits that present applicant is handicapped person. However, counsel for the State submits that his defence that he only took lift in the car, from which the contraband was recovered, cannot be seen at this stage. He further submits that as per the source information received by the police, name of the present applicant was informed, therefore, he seriously opposed the bail application.

Counsel for the applicant submits that there is joint memo prepared under section 50 of the NDPS Act. He cites judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 290 in which it was held that joint communication of the right under section 50 would result in diluting the right. Accused must always be individually informed.

However, at this stage, when we are considering bail, the effect of such joint memo cannot be seen. The main criteria can be seen whether the joint memo caused any prejudice to the defence of the present applicant, which can only be seen at the time of final hearing. At this stage, it cannot be said that merely because joint memo was prepared, the present applicant is entitled for bail.

So far as his defence is concerned that he took lift in the car without knowing that the contraband was being transported in the car and also that the contraband was in the door of the car, which was not in the knowledge of the present applicant, this fact can only be determined at the final stage after recording of the evidence. At this stage, no inference can be drawn. Looking to the quantity of the contraband, no case for grant of bail to the present applicant is made out.

The application is accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

Con.C. No.1023/2014 05.10.2015 None for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, counsel for the respondent. Shri RS Sisodiya - respondent No.3 is present in person before the court. He submits that he has furnished bail in the concerning police station.

Counsel for the respondent submits that she has already filed reply on behalf of the respondent, therefore, she prays that personal appearance of this respondent be exempted.

Prayer is allowed.

Respondent No.3 - Shri RS Sisodiya is exempted from his personal appearance.

List after two weeks.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8790/2015 05.10.2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.

Smt Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the respondent /State.

Case diary is available.

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant.

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - Khargone, District - Khargone in Crime No.276/2015 under sections 364-A of IPC and under section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

According to the prosecution story, report was lodged on 26.05.2015 by brother of the prosecutrix stating therein that at about 3 pm in the afternoon, she left her home saying that she was going to her friend's house and thereafter, she did not come back. On 01.06.2015, a message was received on the mobile phone asking for ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-, which she was using prior to going out from her home. Subsequently, it was found that the mobile phone, from which the message was given, was registered in the name of the present applicant and in further investigation it was found that the mobile phone was being used by one Shanu, who was cousin of the present applicant and the co-accused.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that the prosecutrix is still untraceable.

Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix was 21 years of age when she left her home. She is living with one Waseem to whom she is married now. He has filed affidavit of the prosecutrix and Waseem Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the role assigned to the present applicant, 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.

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 Kratika/-

M.Cr.C. No.8794/2015 05.10.2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandiya, counsel for the respondent/State. Case diary is available.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.

List in the next week, as prayed.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.Cr.C. No.8799/2015 05.10.2015 Case diary is not available.

List in the next week.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika CRR No.1288/2014 01.10.2015 Shri Mohanlal Patidar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter, as the arguing counsel is not available today.

Meanwhile, record of the lower court be called for. List after a week alongwith the record of the lower court.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-

CRA No.1364/2014 01.10.2015 Accused/appellant - Nagendra Singh is not present today before this Court.

None appears on his behalf.

Issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against the appellant/accused - Nagendra Singh, returnable on 11.12.2015.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.1692/2014 01.10.2015 Shri Vishwesh Palsikar, counsel for the appellant. All parties are duly served. No further orders are required on the point of service.

None appeared on behalf of the respondents. List for consideration of I.A. No.7400/2014, an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay after a week.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.2144/2014 01.10.2015 Service report of respondents No.1 and 2 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents No.1 and 2.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.79/2015 01.10.2015 Respondent No.3 is served and power has been filed on his behalf. All other parties are duly served. No further orders are required on the point of service.

Let record of the lower court be called for. List for admission in due course.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.644/2015 01.10.2015 Service report of respondents No.1 to 3 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents No.1 to 3.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika CRR No.681/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Anil Ojha, counsel for the applicant. Shri KK Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.

List in the next week for final disposal, as prayed.

(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.1165/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Himanshu Paliwal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sadashiv Joshi, counsel for the respondent No.4/Insurance Company.

On payment of fresh PF and correct details within two weeks, let notice be issued to the respondents No.1 to 3, returnable within four weeks.

(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika CRR No.1184/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Nilesh Dave, counsel for the applicant. Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State. Counsel for the applicant submits that the defect pointed out by the office has already been cured. He further submits that he has filed I.A. No.7591/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay.

Office to verify and list for consideration of I.A. No.7591/2015 in the next week.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.1380/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Subodh Choudhary, counsel for the appellant. Respondent's Advocate comes from outside. List on 07.10.2015.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.1395/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the appellant/State. On payment of fresh PF, issue notice to the respondents as directed by the Court vide order dated 23.07.2015.

(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.1680/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Shahid Sheikh, counsel for the appellant. As per the office note, the defect has been cured. Issue notice to the respondent(s) on payment of PF within a week, returnable within four week.

Let record of the lower court be called for.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.A. No.1759/2015 01.10.2015 Shri GK Neema, counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A. No.7220/2015, which is an application under section 149 read with section 151 of CPC for grant of time for payment of Court fees.

After due consideration, the application is allowed. Eight weeks' time is granted to the appellant for payment of Court fees.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.Cr.C. No.4019/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Jitendra Mandloi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the respondents.

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is a very poor person. He works as labourer and earns Rs.100/- per day. He further submits that he has deposited Rs.26,000/-.

Counsel for the respondent submits that the total amount due is Rs.1,26,000/- and he has not deposited 50% of the amount.

This Court ordered on 17.07.2015 for deposition of 50% of the amount of arrears within four weeks, which order has not been complied by the applicant.

Looking to his financial condition, further six weeks' time is granted for payment of 50% of amount of arrears.

After lapse of this period, the respondent is free to take legal action for recovery of the amount against the present applicant.

List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.Cr.C. No.6407/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant/State.

Heard on I.A. No.5391/2015.

Issue notice of I.A. No.5391/2015 as well as main application filed under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. to the respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable within four weeks.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika M.Cr.C. No.7855/2015 01.10.2015 Shri Shashank Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant.

Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to cure the defect pointed out by the office.

List after a week, as prayed.

( Alok Verma) Judge Kratika

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Union Of India, C.B.N. vs Devram on 30 October, 2015