Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nanka vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 M.Cr.C.No.12781/2022
(Nanka Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 6.5.2022
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 17.6.2021 in connection with Crime No.130/2021 registered at Police Station Aambua, District Alirajpur (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C.
Prosecution story, in brief is that on 01.06.2021 at about 8.00- 8.30 AM, when the complainant Habu alongwith his wife Lalubai were going to Jheeran Temchi Aamrod Bhuri Faliya on motorcycle, at that time, applicant alongwith other co-accused person intercepted and thereafter assaulted them and looted silver ornaments amounting to Rs.70,000/- worn by complainant's wife.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statements of complainant and his wife have been recorded and they have not identified the applicant as the person who assaulted them and took their ornaments. Charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that two more case was registered against him in which he has been acquitted and at present no criminal case is pending against him. Applicant is in custody since 17.06.2021. Applicant has no past criminal antecedents and he has falsely been implicated in the matter. Trial will take time to conclude and therefore, 2 M.Cr.C.No.12781/2022 (Nanka Vs. State of M.P.) in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State has opposed the application and submits that complainant and his wife although in their statements recorded during trial have not identified the applicant but in the test identification parade, they have identified the applicant. The looted ornaments has been seized from the possession of co-accused and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record against the applicant, period of custody already suffered by the applicant and also considering the fact that material prosecution witnesses, complainant as well as his wife have been examined, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19), the concerned Jail Authority is directed to follow the 3 M.Cr.C.No.12781/2022 (Nanka Vs. State of M.P.) directions/guidelines issued by the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.
This application is allowed and stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge Patil Digitally signed by SHAILESH PATIL Date: 2022.05.06 16:27:33 +05'30'