Shafiq Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shafiq Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2022

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                               1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                     ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50380 of 2022

                                      BETWEEN:-
                                      SHAFIQ KHAN S/O SHARIF KHAN, AGED ABOUT
                                      34    YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                      BARBATKHEDI, PRESENT ADDRESS- TOWER
                                      COLONY,   CHHABRA,     DISTRICT   BARAN
                                      (RAJASTHAN)

                                                                                             .....APPLICANT
                                      (BY SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

                                      AND
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                      HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                      MACHALPUR RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                                      ( BY SHRI VIRAJ GODHA, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

1. They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers.

2. This is a First application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.103/2022 registered at Police Station Machalpur, District Rajgarh (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 395 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The applicant is in custody since 28.09.2022.

4. As per the prosecution, on 22.04.2022, the complainant Rajesh lodged a Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 02-11-2022 19:04:34 2 report to the effect that he is a coordinator in FSS Company which looks after ATM machines. On 22.04.2022, at about 7.05 a.m. when he was at his home, he was informed by the person, who deposits cash in the ATM machine that in the night certain unknown persons have cut open the ATM machine and have taken away the cash kept therein. The ATM machine on inspection was found broken. On the report, investigation was commenced by the Police during course of which statements of witnesses were recorded and recovery of vehicle used in the incident and certain weapons were made from the accused on the basis of which they including the present applicant have been implicated and arrested for the present offence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence connecting the applicant to the present crime. Though the applicant is stated to have arrived and left in a Swift Car which has been seen in the incident, but that has not been shown to be the Car which has been recovered from the co- accused. Merely on the basis of recovery of certain Bank currency notes from the applicant his implication could not have been done. Besides memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act there is no other material against the applicant, who is in custody since 28.09.2022, hence deserves to be released on bail.

6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegation levelled against him and the material collected by the prosecution against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail particularly when he is having 5 more criminal antecedents against him.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case- diary.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 02-11-2022 19:04:34 3

8. The vehicle in which the applicant is stated to have arrived at the crime scene and left has not been identified to be the vehicle which has been recovered from the co-accused. There does not appear to be any direct evidence of involvement of the applicant in the crime. Recovery of certain Bank notes and tools from the applicant by themselves cannot point to his involvement particularly when those currency notes have not been shown to be the currency notes which were stolen from the ATM machine. Investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody since 28.09.2022 and the possibility of the trial taking a long time for its conclusion cannot be ruled out. Thus, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

9. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each out of which one shall be local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.

10. It is also directed that the applicant will abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules. .

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 02-11-2022 19:04:34

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court