Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sikendar Khan vs Decd.Hussain Khan Thru.Lrs.Ikbal on 29 July, 2015
1
S.A. No. 333/ 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Swati Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel
appears on behalf of the respondent No.4 / State.
Counsel for the appellants is directed to hand
over a copy of the appeal memo along with the
annexures in the office of the Advocate General
within a week.
Call for the record.
List on admission in the week commencing
17th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
2
M. Cr. C. No. 6249 / 2015
28/07/2015
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State.
By this application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., Counsel prayed for correction in the order
dated 05/05/2015 in M.Cr.C. No.3580/2015.
Counsel has pointed out that in the initial part of the
order itself the Court had observed that the appeal
filed by the appellant / applicant was partially
allowed and the custodial sentence was reduced to the
period already undergone by enhancing the fine to
Rs.1,000/-. Counsel urged that there was a second
appellant Rameshwar, S/o Amar Singh who is also a
co-accused in the said appeal and his sentence was
3
bailed for offence under Section 376 and by mistake
it has been typed that the sentence of two years under
Sections 323 & 376/511 of the I.P.C was reduced to
the period already undergone by reducing the fine to
Rs.5,000/-. On pursuing the order passed in the Cr.A.
No.975/1996, I find that the error is apparent on the
face of the record. Besides, Counsel stated that the
fine of Rs.1,000/- has already been deposited.
Accordingly a copy of the receipt is produced by him
before this Court today. He prayed that the
application be allowed and the order be amended
suitably.
Counsel for the respondent / State has also
admitted that the error is apparent on the face of the
record and may be permitted to amend.
In view of the above, the application is
allowed. The order shall be read as follows:
"Counsel for the applicant
has candidly admitted that the
4
Criminal Appeal No.975/1996 filed
by the accused / applicant was partly
allowed to the extent that the
conviction was reduced to R.I. For
two years under Section 323 & 354
of the I.P.C by judgment dated
12/04/2012. So also the fine amount
was enhanced to Rs.5,000/- and the
amount was to be paid to the
prosecutrix as compensation within
a period of two months. Counsel
urged that the applicant was unable
to pay the fine within the stipulated
time and therefore, has prayed for
extension of time to pay the required
amount as he has now made
arrangements for the same.
A copy of this order be maintained in M.Cr.C.
No.3580/2015 and Cr.A. No.975/1996.
5
With the aforesaid observations and
directions this M.Cr.C is disposed of.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr.R. No. 1317 / 2011
29/07/2015
None for the petitioner.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State.
None appeared on 07/07/2015. Registry has
pointed out default of appearance on 07/07/2015.
In view of the above, let non-bailable
warrants of arrest be issued against the petitioner for
his presence before this Court on 25th of August,
2015. Notice be also issued to the surety as to why
the surety amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned
CJM for compliance.
6
List on 25th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr.R. No. 903 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri O.P. Solanki, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State.
Order passed in separate sheets.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
7
Cr. R. No. 641/ 2015
29/07/2015
Shri B. Azad, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
Order passed in separate sheets.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
8
Cr. R. No. 692 / 2015
29/07/2015
None for the petitioners.
List after four weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
9
Cr. R. No. 709 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned Counsel for
the petitioner submits that the process has been paid.
Service report is awaited.
I.R granted on 01/07/2015 to continue till the
next date of hearing.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for analogous
hearing with Cr.R. No.708/2015.
List analogously, after service of notice on
the respondent.
C.C. as per rules.
10
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. A. No. 899 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State.
Heard on admission.
Call for record.
List thereafter.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
11
M. Cr. C. No. 1176 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Prakash Gehlot, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Navneet Kishore, learned Counsel for
the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for
time.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is
granted to the applicant.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
12
sumathi Judge
M. Cr. C. No. 4946 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, learned Counsel for
the applicant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the
respondent / State.
Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for
time to produce certain citations.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
13
M. Cr. C. No. 6013 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the
respondent / State prays for time to verify the
criminal antecedents of the applicant.
List in the next week, as prayed along with
M.Cr.C. No.4946/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
14
M. Cr. C. No. 5973 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned Counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
the respondent No.1 / State.
Shri D.S. Pawar, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/Complainant.
Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for
time to produce copy of certain judgments related to
taking compromise on record.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
15
sumathi Judge
M. Cr. C. No. 4968 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Anshuman Shrivastav, learned Counsel for
the applicant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the
respondent / state.
By this 3rd application filed u/s 439 of the
Cr.P.C., the applicant Sanju @ Sanjay S/o Ramsia
Sharma, has moved the application for grant of bail
being implicated in criminal case No. 854/2013
registered at police station Aerodrome, District Indore
for offence under Sections 307, 294/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged
the fact that this is the 3rd bail application moved on
behalf of the applicant and Counsel submits that the
complainant was an eye witness to the account has
turned hostile in Court. He however, candidly admitted
16
that the injured eye witness has not been examined yet
and prayed that the application for grant of bail be
allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other
hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the
applicant, stating that the applicant is fully implicated in
the mater and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the
impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations
and materials collected in the case diary and since no
other point has been raised before this Court by the
learned Counsel for the applicant, I find that it is not a fit
case for grant of bail and the application is dismissed as
being without merit.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
sumathi
17
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M. Cr. C. No. 5055 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State prays for time to produce the
case diary.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to file
the challan papers. In the meanwhile, criminal
antecedents of the applicant be verified.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
18
M. Cr. C. No. 5259 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Ratnesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the
respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the
applicant submits that he does not wish to press the
application. However, he prays for directions to the trial
Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the
counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is,
therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, trial
Court is directed to complete the trial preferably within 6
months from today.
C.C. as per rules.
19
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M. Cr. C. No. 5371 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the
respondent / State.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is
granted to the respondent / state to verify the criminal
antecedents of the applicant. Otherwise, the Counsel
is directed to keep the S.H.O present before this
Court on next occasion.
Learned Counsel for the respondent /State
prays for a fixed date.
List on 11th of August 2015, as prayed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
20
sumathi Judge
M. Cr. C. No. 5405 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State prays for one last opportunity
to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
Several opportunities have already been granted. She
is directed to keep the S.H.O of the concerned police
station present before this Court.
List on 11th of August 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
21
M. Cr. C. No. 5475 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State.
Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for
analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. Nos.5374/15 &
4316/15.
Learned Counsel for the respondent / State is
directed to verify the criminal antecedents of the
applicant.
List analogously in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
22
M. Cr. C. No. 5578 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State prays for time to produce the
case diary as well as to verify the criminal
antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, one more opportunity
is granted to the respondent / State.
List in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
23
M. Cr. C. No. 5658 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri Navneet Kishore, learned Counsel for
the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for
the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the
applicant submits that he does not wish to press the
application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the
counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is,
therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
24
M.Cr.C. No.5676 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri N. J. Dave, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the
respondent /State prays for a fixed date in the matter to
keep the investigating officer present before this Court.
List on 6th of August, 2015 as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
25
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 5361 / 2015
29/07/2015
Shri N. J. Dave, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the
respondent /State.
By this application filed under section 439 of
the Cr.P.C., applicant Dinesh Yogi S/o Jagdishchandra
Yogi has moved the application for grant of bail being
implicated in crime No.117/2015 registered by police
Suvasra District Mandsaur for offence under Sections
363, 366(A),376(2)(F)(K)(N), 368, 212 of the IPC &
5(1)/6 of Protection of Children from sexual offences
Act, 2012.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged
the fact that the applicant is only 20 years of age and has
been falsely implicated in the matter and submitted that
it is a case of affair of heart and elopement. The
prosecutrix was almost 16 years of age at the time of
26
incident according to the ossification test and the date of
birth as disclosed by the prosecutrix. Placing reliance on
the judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil v. State of
Haryana, AIR 2010 SCC 392, Counsel submitted that
since the clinical examination showing that the
prosecutrix had well developed secondary sexual
characters and she has gone on consent positively, the
conviction would be improper and hence Counsel prayed
for grant of bail since the applicant has full chance of
success and the trial is likely to take long time, besides
he submitted that the applicant is a student and his career
would be affected since he has been arrested on
29/05/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other
hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for
the applicant, however candidly submitted that the
statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in the case
that the prosecutrix was 15 years of age and her consent
would be of no use. Although he candidly admitted that
the prosecutrix had been to several open places and
27
never protested. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the
application.
On considering the above submissions, material
available in the case diary and looking to the nature of
allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail
needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is,
hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial
Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial
Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide
by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of
the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
28
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6111 / 2015
28/07/2015
Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
the respondent /State.
O R D E R
By this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his application, filed under section 311 of the Cr.P.C; for recalling of witness P.W.14, investigating officer, S.S. Nagar. The order was passed on 06/07/2015 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsuar in Sessions Trial No.171/2009. Counsel also prayed for grant of stay over the proceedings vide I.A. No.5153/2015.
Briefly stated the facts of the case in a nut shell are that the petitioner was being proceeded for 29 offences under sections 302, 307, 326, 147, 148, 149, 294, 506 of IPC & Sec 25 & 26 Arms Act. When the application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C was filed by the accused for the purpose of re-examining the investigating officer, P.W-14 S.S. Nagar, the application was dismissed by the lower Court and hence the present petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the trial is pending consideration since 1999 and the investigating officer PW-14 was examined only on 07/04/2015 and although a short cross examination was conducted on 24/06/2015, the Senior Counsel of the accused was not available and the junior Counsel failed to ask certain crucial questions regarding spot map, the neighbours, the place of incident and the applicant's injuries. The cross examination was also adjourned to 06/07/2015 by the trial Court and hence on 06/07/2015 the applicant had moved an application under Section 30 311 of the Cr.P.C. However, the Court has failed to record the statement of the accused and the matter was adjourned to 09/07/2015. However, the Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C on 06/07/2015 itself ascribing delay as one of the reasons. Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that there was no delay on the part of the applicant. Moreover for a just decision of the case the application should have been allowed since fair and speedy trial is the right of every accused.
Counsel further urged that many of the statements of the material witnesses would go un- challenged and the petitioner/accused is likely to suffer; as his defence would be affected and he would have to ultimately face conviction. Counsel submitted that a single opportunity be granted to cross examine the P.W.-14, investigating officer and the impugned order be set aside. He submitted that the application was necessary for just and proper 31 disposal of the case.
Moreover, Counsel submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the single witness is allowed to be re-examined. Placing reliance on Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat (2006)3 SCC 374, Counsel stated that the object underlying Section 311 of the Cr.P.C was to prevent failure of justice and the determinative factor should be whether the application was essential for a just decision in the case. Moreover, it could have been moved at any stage and Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
Per Contra, Counsel for the respondent/State has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the case is of the year 1999 and several opportunities have already been granted to the accused and the roving enquiry could not be allowed to be perpetrated by the cross examination at this stage of the trial and no fruitful purpose would be served. Moreover the 32 investigating officer has been examined on 24/06/2015 and the application was moved only on 06/07/2015 which is clearly an after thought and made with the intention to protract the trial. Counsel submitted that the petition was without merit and the same be dismissed.
On considering the above submissions, the stage of the trial and the order passed by the trial Court, I find that the application cannot be allowed merely to permit a roving cross-examination / enquiry to re-open the trial at this stage, besides it would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. Unwarranted sympathy to the applicant would cause prejudice to the other side. The object of the Section 311 would be lost and hence under the circumstances, I find that the petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed as such.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 33 M. Cr. C. No. 5050 / 2015 28/07/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.4447/15, which is an application for grant of stay of further proceedings.
This application cannot be considered at this stage.
List for final hearing in the first week of September, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 34 Cr. A. No. 990 -2012 28/07/2015 None for the appellant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Let non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against the appellant for his presence before this Court on 18th of August, 2015. Notice be also issued to the surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned CJM for compliance.
List on 18th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
35
Cr. A. No. 970 / 2015
28/07/2015
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit. Call for the record.
At this juncture, Counsel for the appellant prays for grant of suspension of sentence and bail vide I.A. No.5429/2015. Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the appellant is only 23 years of age and the dispute developed suddenly on the spot regarding writing of letter. Counsel submitted that short sentence of three years R.I. has been imposed for offence under Sections 323, 326 of the IPC and the appellant had no intention to cause any grievous 36 injury as has been alleged. Counsel prayed that the petition shall be rendered futile if the suspension of sentence is not allowed. Hence Counsel prayed that the application be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant and stated that the appellant was fully implicated in the matter. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the short sentence involved, I find that the application needs to be allowed. The application is, therefore, allowed.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to his having paid the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) with a local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry 37 on 28th of August, 2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.
CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. A. No. 702 / 2005
28/07/2015
Shri Rahul Hardiya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has met with a road traffic accident, R.T.A and he would like to file the medical certificate 38 and appropriate application for condonation of absence of the appellant and he prays for time.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. A. No. 646 / 2007
28/07/2015
Shri Soumil Ekadi, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellants prays for a fixed date to keep the appellant No.1 Pangla S/o Thavra present before this Court.
List on 11th of August, 2015 for the presence of the accused / appellant No.1.
39 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M. Cr. C. No. 5182 / 2015 28/07/2015
Shri Sachin Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted a copy of the order dated 13/03/2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1501/2015 to state that the matter is almost identical and prays for grant of interim relief.
Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time.
List on this Friday, i.e. on 31/07/2015, as prayed.
40 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M. Cr. C. No. 5214 / 2015 28/07/2015
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to procure copy of the order passed in similar petition.
List on Thursday i.e. on 30/07/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
41
M. Cr. C. No. 5041 / 2015
28/07/2015
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the process has been paid. There is no service report.
List for service report in the week commencing 10th of August, 2015.
At this juncture, Counsel prays for grant of stay over the proceedings before the trial Court.
List on I.A. No.4440/15 in the week commencing 10th of August, 2015.
42 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 43 M. Cr. C. No. 6460 / 2015 28/07/2015
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after the prosecutrix is examined.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
44
Cr. A. No. 970 / 2015
28/07/2015
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit. Call for the record.
At this juncture, Counsel for the appellant prays for grant of suspension of sentence and bail vide I.A. No.5429/2015. Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the appellant is only 23 years of age and the dispute developed suddenly on the spot regarding writing of letter. Counsel submitted that short sentence of three years R.I. has been imposed for offence under Sections 323, 326 of the IPC and the appellant had no intention to cause any grievous injury as has been alleged. Counsel prayed that the 45 petition shall be rendered futile if the suspension of sentence is not allowed. Hence Counsel prayed that the application be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant and stated that the appellant was fully implicated in the matter. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the short sentence involved, I find that the application needs to be allowed. The application is, therefore, allowed.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to his having paid the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) with a local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 28th of August, 2015 and on such subsequent 46 dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.
CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M. Cr. C. No. 10406 / 2014
28/07/2015
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant / State.
Heard I.A. No.9852/2014, which is an application for condonation of delay.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time 47 and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondent.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.1069/ 2011
28/07/2015
Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to keep the petitioner present before this Court, however, he prays for a fixed date in the matter.
48List on 17th of August 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.865 / 2015
28/07/2015
Shri Shakil Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard I.A. No.5255/15, which is an application for condonation of delay. Counsel submits that he does not wish to press the application, stating that the revision has been filed in time.
In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed.
Petition is taken up for admission. Admit.
49Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.385/ 2012
28/07/2015
None appears to press the application. By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner.
List in the next week for disposal.
50(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr. A. No. 990 -2012 28/07/2015 None for the appellant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Let non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against the appellant for his presence before this Court on 18th of August, 2015. Notice be also issued to the surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned CJM for compliance.
List on 18th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
51
sumathi Judge
Cr. A. No. 807 / 2008
28/07/2015
Shri Soumil Ekadi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1 Praveen S/o Biharilal Rangi.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned Counsel for the appelant submits that respondent No.1, Praveen S/o Biharilal Rangi, has been getting his absence condoned in the registry and has failed to appear before this Court on three occasion.
In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant against the respondent No.1. The respondent no.1 is directed to furnish personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court / Registry on 18th of August, 2015.
52List on 18th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr. A. No. 284 -2012 28/07/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant Lakhan Jat is absent because he is in custody for an another offence.
In view of the above, it is directed that the appellant shall undergo the remaining sentence of earlier order on record.
53 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 54 Cr. A. No. 416 / 2014 28/07/2015
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the appellant / State.
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it had rained heavily at Bercha, hence the appellant is unable to mark his presence today before this Court. Counsel prays for a fixed date in the matter.
List on 17th of August 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
55
Cr. A. No. 464 / 2011
28/07/2015
Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri P.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State is unable to verify the death of the appellant No.2, Lakhansingh. She is directed to keep the Investigating Officer present before this Court on 11th of August, 2015.
List on 11th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
56
Cr. A. No. 144 / 2011
28/07/2015
Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for a fixed date to keep the appellant present before this Court. This Court has already granted two months time to keep the appellant present.
In view of the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant for his presence before this Court on 18th of August, 2015. Notice be also issued to the surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned CJM for compliance.
List on 18th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 57 sumathi Judge Cr. A. No. 846 / 2011 28/07/2015 None for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Await service report regarding non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant Sanjay @ Ajju and notice to the surety no.2.
List in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No.4671/ 2015
58
24/07/2015
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicants Bharatsingh S/o Ratansingh Tanwar and Arjun S/o Chotelal Verma have moved the applications for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 179/2015 registered at police station-Rajgarh, District Rajgarh for offence under Sections 306, 34 of the I.P.C & 3(2) (10) of SC/ST Act.
Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered Counsel submitted that the applicants have been implicated merely because they belong to the village of the accused and had gone to mediate on behalf of the accused person. However, there is no incriminating evidence available on record regarding the abducting of the daughter of the deceased and they have nothing to do with the offence. Moreover, on the grounds of parity alone Counsel 59 prayed for grant of bail of the applicants since the co- accused Badambai and Sonabai have been granted bail in M.Cr.C. No.3928/2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed on grounds of parity alone and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)each with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
60It is further directed that the applicants shall attend on each date of hearing of their trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, they shall also mark their presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking their presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicants in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 61 M.Cr.C. No.4904 / 2015 24/07/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application, however, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after the prosecutrix is examined in the Court.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
62(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.5532 / 2015 23/07/2015 Shri T.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
This case is not to be listed before me.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No.5356 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri Ravi Shukla, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State prays for time to verify the criminal 63 antecedents of the applicant, since the applicant belongs to the state of Uttar Pradesh.
List after two weeks, as prayed. .
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr.R. No.1273/2014 & Cr.R. No.1536/2014 23/07/2015 Shri Gagan Parashar, learned Counsel for the petition / wife, Ms. Aarti.
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the respondent /husband, Mr. Manish Jhaveri.
These two petitions are taken up together. After considering the submission for some time, I find that one attempt be made to reconcile / mediate the 64 matter.
Parties are directed to be present before this Court on 30th of July, 2015.
List on 30/07/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr.R. Nos.1244/14; 1477/14; 1478/14; 1507/14 23/07/2015 List along with Cr.R. No. 1476/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Review Petition No. 196 - 2015 65 23/07/2015 Shri M.I. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application under section 151 and 152 of the C.P.C., Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for correction of the mistake that has occasioned in the main body of the order dated 06/01/2015 passed in W.P. No.8265/2014. Counsel submitted that the respondent was not the Acropolis Institute of Technology and it ought to have been Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Science and the mistake be allowed to be corrected since the applicant is being deprived of the benefit of the order granted to him.
Learned Counsel for the respondent / State admits that the error was apparent on the face of the record.
In view of the above the application is 66 allowed. The order shall be now read as follows:
"Resultantly, without going into the merits of the case, I find that the present writ petition also needs to be allowed. It is hereby allowed. Subject to verification the petitioner found eligible and government policy covers the petitioner, it is directed that the respondent Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Science shall grant the benefit of exemption of tuition fees to the petitioner, and in case, such tuition fees has already been recovered, the same be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Similarly the respondent No.2 Institute is also granted liberty to claim the refund of tuition fees from the State of 67 MP after making payment to the petitioner and the State Government shall refund the tuition fees to the Institute within a period of 60 days thereafter.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.
No order as to costs."
A copy of this order be maintained in W.P. No.8265/2015 for convenience.
With the aforesaid, this review petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
68
Cr.R. No.1476/2014
23/07/2015
Shri Vijay Asudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj R. Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent.
After going through the technical aspects of the petition, I find that atleast a single attempt should be made for reconciliation between the parties since the matter appears to be out of ego.
Counsel for both the parties agrees to keep Shri Arjun T. Kukreja and Shri Ramesh Torani present before the Court to work at the compromise, if possible.
Counsel prays for a fixed date in the matter. List on 28/07/2015 for their presence. No further time shall be granted.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
69
M.Cr.C. No.5829 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri Vivek Singh learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Shakir S/o Sirajudin has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.306/2015 registered by police Barwani District Barwani for offence under Sections 376(2)N, 506, 452 of the IPC.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact it is case of consensual sex. The prosecutrix was 28 years old and was having affair with the friend of her husband and on being caught cried foul. Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant was arrested on 11/06/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant, however candidly admitted that prosecutrix was 70 a major and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and the application is, hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
71
F.A. No.254 / 2011
23/07/2015
Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant.
There is no service report regarding respondents, as prescribed under provisions of amended High Court Rules.
Registry to verify and do the needful. List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
F.A. No.475 / 2011
23/07/2015
72
Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that he would like to move appropriate application regarding respondent No.2, who is no longer in service in the present place.
Subject to compliance, list after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 2640 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the respondent / State.
List in the next week, as prayed.
73 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr.R. No.858 / 2015 23/07/2015
Shri V.R. Purohit, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Call for record.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within two weeks. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
74List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
75
Cr. A. No. 947 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri Subodh Abyankar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.5346/15, which is an application for condonation of delay of 252 days occasioned in filing the appeal.
Considering the fact that the appellant is a poor person and was unable to arrange for the finance, the I.A. No.5346/15 is allowed. Delay is condoned.
Appeal is taken up for admission. Admit.
Call for record.
List on I.A. 5345/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, as soon as the record is received.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 76 Cr.R. No. 892 / 2015 23/07/2015 Shri Anil Malviya, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to cure the defects pointed out by the registry.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No.3815/ 2015
23/07/2015
Shri Manish Vijayawargiya, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
List in the next week.
77 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M.Cr.C. No. 5840 / 2015 23/07/2015
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Pangu @ Sardar S/o Annu, and Gullu S/o Dhuliya have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.264/2015 registered at police station Sardarpur, District Dhar for offence under Sections 294, 326, 323, 341, 506/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication.
78Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that there was dispute regarding
--- words that were being used by the complainant party and there was no intention to cause any grievous harm or damage as being alleged. Moreover, applicant Gullu was 64 years of age and agriculturist and it is sowing season, Counsel has prayed for grant of bail since the applicants were arrested on 23/06/2015.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and pointed out that applicant No.1 Pangu has utilised knife and caused grievous injury on the ear of the complainant and the injury was dangerous to life and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant submitted that he does not wish to press the application on behalf of applicant No.1, Pangu. Prayer being 79 reasonable, not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent / State.
In view of the above, the application for grant of bail moved on behalf of applicant No.1 Pangu alone is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
Considering the application on behalf of applicant Gullu alone is concerned, looking to the nature of allegations, materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application on behalf of applicant No.2 Gullu alone is hereby allowed. However stringent conditions needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that applicant Gullu be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
80It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
81
M.Cr.C. No.6394 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri H.S. Rathore for the applicant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
At this juncture, Counsel prays for grant of stay over the proceedings before the Court below vide I.A. No.5373/2015.
Let the proceedings be stayed in the trial Court till the next date of hearing.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the stay granted today shall be vacated without reference to this Court.
List on confirmation of the stay on 11th of August, 2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 82 M.Cr.C. No. 6135 / 15 & M.Cr.C. No. 6161 /15 23/07/2015 Shri Kaushal Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
Shri Harshad Wadnekar, learned Counsel for the complainant.
These two applications are taken up together since they arise out of the same crime number registered at same police station.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Pratap S/o Vaishya, Prem S/o Vaishya, Shambu S/o Vaishya and Ambu S/o Pema Dabur have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.392/2015 registered at police station Dhar, District Dhar for offence under Sections 435, 436/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants has vehemently 83 urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted the applicants lost their control because two children in their family died in mishap and hence in a fit of anger, they set fire to truck, which caused the accident. Counsel submitted the applicants are of varied age between 23 to 60 years. Moreover, it is sowing season and the applicants are agriculturists and Counsel has prayed for grant of bail since the applicants were arrested on 15/06/2015 and have full chance of success in the trial.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and submitted that incriminating evidences are available to indicate that the truck was set to fire and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
Counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the 84 applicants stating that loss was caused due to the fire not only to the truck but the house was also set to fire.
Considering the above submissions, looking to the nature of allegations, materials collected in the case diary, I find that the applicant needs to be allowed in the interest of justice, considering the provocation that there was death of young children in their family. In view of the above the application is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicants Pratap, Prem, Shambu and Ambu be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only)each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 85 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
Original order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No.6135/2015 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No.6161/2015 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 86 M.Cr.C. No. 6161 /15 23/07/2015 Shri Kaushal Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
Shri Harshad Wadnekar, learned Counsel for the complainant.
In view of the detailed order passed in M.Cr.C. No.6135/2015 by me today, this application also stands allowed. Copy of the main order be placed in this File.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
87
M.Cr.C. No.6116 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri D.S. Patel, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Durgesh S/o Shiv Narayan has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.125/2013 registered by police Akodiya District Shajapur for offence under Sections 363,366, 376(2) of the IPC and S. 3/4 & 5 of Protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact it is an affair of heart. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant is only 22 years of age and has been arrested on 27/03/2015. Prosecutrix 88 was more than 17 years of age and on the verge of attaining majority. Counsel prayed for grant of bail since the applicant is likely to deteriorate in custody.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant, however candidly admitted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 15/07/1998 and Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and the application is, hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by 89 the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
90
M.Cr.C. No.6219 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri Mitesh Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Firoz S/o Saleem has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.73/2015 registered by police Tarana, District Ujjain for offence under Sections 295, 429 of the IPC and 4,6 & 9 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that seven of the co-accused out of nine accused have been granted bail by the trial Court itself. Moreover, the remains of the animals have 91 been recovered from open place culvert (Nalla) and the applicant has nothing to do with the same. Counsel moreover, submitted that there is no incriminating evidence available on record except the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Whereas in the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant Preetam the name of the present applicant does not find mention. Hence, Counsel has prayed for grant of bail since the applicant has been arrested on 23/03/2015 and the trial is likely to take long time.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and he was unable to counter the arguments that there was no incriminating evidence available on record except the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, 92 material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and the application is, hereby allowed. However, by way of abundant caution, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the 93 pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
94
Cr. A. No. 985 / 2015
23/07/2015
Shri Subodh Abyankar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Record of the lower Court is available. Heard on I.A. No.4899/15, which is the third application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, filed on behalf of Ramanya @ Ramesh S/o Hemariya Barela and Munna S/o Sutaria Barela. Counsel submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the appellants have been sentenced to four years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of the same they are further sentenced to two months R.I., for offence under Section 366 of the 95 IPC. Moreover counsel submitted that the first application was allowed on 18/09/2008 and the appellants were regularly marking their presence before the trial Court. Since they have gone to earn their livelihood in other state on 23/01/2015, the appellants could not mark their presence. Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and the material available on record, I find that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of jail sentence. The application I.A. No. 4899/15 stands allowed.
It is directed that the appellants be released on bail subject to paying the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees 96 Twenty five Thousand only) each with a local surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 27th of August, 2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.
List on 27th of August, 2015.
CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.6223 / 2015 97 23/07/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vinay Mittal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Rahim Khan S/o Abdul Saied Khan, and Salim Khan S/o Abdul Saied Khan have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.89/2015 registered at police station Baghana, District Neemuch for offence under Sections 341, 294, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that there was a cross case filed by the injured Mohsin against the present applicants. Counsel has prayed for grant of bail since the applicants were arrested on 14/05/2015.
98Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and submitted that applicant No.2 Salim Khan is alleged to have knifed the injured Mohsin in the stomach and the injury was dangerous to life. There is incriminating eye witness available on record and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant submitted that he does not wish to press the application on behalf of applicant No.2, Salim Khan. Prayer being reasonable, not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent / State.
In view of the above, the application for grant of bail moved on behalf of applicant No.2 Salim Khan alone is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
Considering the application on behalf of applicant Rahim Khan alone is concerned, looking to the nature of allegations, materials collected in the case 99 diary, I find that no specific over act has been attributed to the applicant No.1 Rahim Khan. In view of the above the application on behalf of applicant No.1 Rahim Khan alone is hereby allowed. However stringent conditions needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that applicant Rahim Khan be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the 100 pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M.A. No. 2421 / 2014 101 20/07/2015 None for the appellant.
Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Heard on I.A. No. 3785/2014, an application for vacating stay.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the appellant has not complied with the order dated 09/02/2015 and not deposited the 50% of the awarded amount in executing Court. Therefore, the stay be vacated and the respondent No.1 be permitted to execute the award.
Learned Counsel for the appellant is absent and he has not filed any particulars in regard to compliance of the order dated 09/02/2015. In such circumstances, the stay granted on 09/02/2015 is hereby vacated and respondent No.1 is permitted to execute the impugned award as per law.
Notices of respondent No.3 is returned unserved as he is out of station and whereas the notices of 102 respondent No.2 & 4 were returned for want of correct address.
On payment of process fee with correct address within a week, issue notices to respondent no.2 to 4.
Let the matter be fixed on 10/09/2015.
[Jarat Kumar Jain] Judge sumathi Misc. Civil Case No.99 of 2015 20/07/2015 103 Shri P.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant / State.
O R D E R Heard on I.A. No.1040/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to loss of sight and inadvertence and communication gap, the applicant could not file the application for restoration in time. The application is delayed by 30 days. The delay is bona fide, therefore, it be condoned. In support the applicant as well as the Counsel has filed their affidavits.
Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer. After due consideration, the application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed.
Heard on application for restoration of W.P. No.8603/2014.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant could not pay process fee in time and as per the peremptory order the petition has been dismissed on 31/12/2014. No sooner the applicant came to know about the dismissal of the petition, he filed the application for restoration. In such 104 circumstances, the petition be restored to its original number.
Learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer.
On considering the over all circumstances, the application is allowed. Consequently, the W.P. No.8603/2014 is restored to its original number.
Thus this petition is disposed off. A copy of this order be kept in W.P. No.8603/2014.
[Jarat Kumar Jain] Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 6143 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the 105 respondent / State prays for time to produce the case diary.
Counsel for the applicant prays for analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. No.6079/2015.
List analogously in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr. C. No. 5917 / 2015 17/07/2015 Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for 106 the respondent/State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicants Dharam S/o. Prem Narayan and Basanti Bai W/o Prem Narayan have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.255/2015 registered at police station Kalapipal, District Shajapur, for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that applicant no.1 Dharam is brother- in-law and applicant No.2 is mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased daughter-in-law has committed suicide by hanging and it was a case of false implication. On the basis of the omnibus statement recorded by the relatives and parents of the deceased, applicants have been falsely implicated. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the FIR was delayed by a period of 10 days and it is now more than 3 years since the marriage has taken place.
107Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicants would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if they are arrested.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and has stated that the brother of the deceased has filed a report and categorically stated that the deceased was treated with cruelty and beating, besides demand of dowry was consistent from the date of marriage itself. Hence the applicants do not deserve any sympathy for grant of anticipatory bail and she prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicants is better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court, Counsel for the applicants has expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be 108 arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 31/07/2015 before the Competent Court and they shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day of its presentation in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
109(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5903 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for 110 the respondent / State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Ramsingh S/o Shankarlalji has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 364/2014 registered at police station Nalkheda, District Agar for offence under Sections 363,366,376(2) of the I.P.C and u/S 5(L)/6 of Prevention of children from sexual offence Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered only allegation against the present applicant is having harboured the prosecutrix and brother-in-law of the present applicant. It was a case of elopement and the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and hence Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant has been arrested on 23/06/2015.
111Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the applicant is fully implicated in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations, brevity of the offence and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
112It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5843 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for 113 the respondent /State.
Shri P. Bhagawat, learned Counsel for the objector.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Prem S/o Kailashchandra has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 1254/14 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474, 465, 120B/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that on the grounds of parity along the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. The co- accused Manish Tambholi and Smt. Randeep Choudhary have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5367/2015 and M.Cr.C. No.5681/2015. Counsel submits that the matter 114 arouse out of signatures that were put up in internet for making appointment of directors fraudulently. Counsel submitted that the applicant has only forwarded the documents put up by the Company to R.O.C which was certified by the co-accused Manish Peshwani and the applicant has no active role to play in the prosecution case and prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant has been arrested on 21/06/2015 and entire family is suffering.
Counsel for the respondent/State as well as the complainant, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the applicant was fully implicated in the matter and responsible for fraudulent act of appointment and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of 115 allegations and materials collected in the case diary I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed subject to the applicant shall give an undertaking in writing before the trial Court that he shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and he shall fully co-operate with the investigating agency and will not tamper the evidence.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
116C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5792 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for direction to the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously, as 117 possible.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. However, trial Court is directed to complete the trial preferably within 6 months from today.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5694 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Upendra Singh Chandrawat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent State.
118By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Dinesh Bhel S/o Mangilal has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.177/2015 registered at police station Audhoyogik Chetra, Jaora, District Ratlam for offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel stated that only 63 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized from the joint possession of the applicant along with co- accused. Challan has been put up and the applicant is not longer need for investigation. Counsel submitted that the applicant is a young person of 29 years old and is likely to deteriorate in custody since he has been arrested on 05/05/2015 and hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the applicant is fully implicated 119 in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed. However, by way of abundant caution, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m during the pendency of the 120 trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5683 / 2015 17/07/2015 Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to produce the case 121 diary.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5597 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri D.S. Patel, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for 122 the respondent / State.
By this second application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Nandu @ Jeevan S/o Chandersingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 91/2015 registered at police station A. Badhodiya, District Shajapur for offence under Sections 376, 450 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered It was a case of consent and the prosecutrix was major person and 19 years of age besides of being caught by the cousin brother of the father-in-law the prosecutrix has cried foul. Counsel stated that the applicant has full chance of success in the trial and hence prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant has been arrested on 24/04/2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other 123 hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the applicant is fully implicated in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations, brevity of the offence and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall 124 abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr. A. No. 590 / 2014 17/07/2015 List along with Cr. A. No.367/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 125 M.Cr.C. No. 5683 / 2015 17/07/2015 Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to produce the case diary.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 126 M.Cr. C. No. 5917 / 2015 17/07/2015 Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicants Dharam S/o. Prem Narayan and Basanti Bai W/o Prem Narayan have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.255/2015 registered at police station Kalapipal, District Shajapur, for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that applicant no.1 Dharam is brother- in-law and applicant No.2 is mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased daughter-in-law has 127 committed suicide by hanging and it was a case of false implication. On the basis of the ominbus statement recorded by the relatives and parents of the deceased, applicants have been falsely implicated. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the FIR was delayed by a period of 10 days and it is now more than 3 years since the marriage has taken place. Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicants would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if they are arrested.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and has stated that the brother of the deceased has filed a report and categorically stated that the deceased has met with cruelty and beating, besides demand of dowry was consistent from the date of marriage itself. Hence the applicants do not deserve any sympathy for grant of anticipatory bail and she prayed for dismissal of the application.
128On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicants is better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court, Counsel for the applicants has expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 31/07/2015 before the Competent Court and they shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day of its presentation in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the 129 applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 6143 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the 130 applicant.
Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to produce the case diary.
Counsel for the applicant prays for analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. No.6079/2015.
List analogously in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 131 Cr. A. No. 367 / 2014 17/07/2015 Shri G.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Shri S.R. Bhora, learned Counsel for the prosecutrix.
Appellant Shambhulal is present in person. Prosecutrix is present in person submits that the matter has been fully compromised and no more grievances remains.
The compromise is taken on record and it is directed that I.A. Nos. 4486/2015 & 4487/2015 may be considered at the time of final hearing.
Appeal be listed for final hearing in the last week of September, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 132 133 M.Cr. C. No. 5060 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the respondent / State.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 134 M.Cr.C. No. 5903 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Ramsingh S/o Shankarlalji has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 364/2014 registered at police station Nalkheda, District Agar for offence under Sections 363,366,376(2) of the I.P.C and u/S 5(L)/6 of Prevention of children from sexual offence Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered only allegation against the present applicant is having 135 harboured the prosecutrix and brother-in-law of the present applicant. It was a case of elopement and the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and hence Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant has been arrested on 23/06/2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the applicant is fully implicated in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations, brevity of the offence and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 136 Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 137 M.Cr.C. No. 5843 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Shri P. Bhagawat, learned Counsel for the objector.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Prem S/o Kailashchandra has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 1254/14 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474, 465, 120B/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, 138 Counsel submitted that on the grounds of parity along the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. The co- accused Manish Tambholi and Smt. Randeep Choudhary have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5367/2015 and M.Cr.C. No.5681/2015. Counsel submits that the matter arouse out of signatures that were put up in internet for making appointment of directors fraudulently. Counsel submitted that the applicant has only forwarded the documents put up by the Company to R.O.C which was certified by the co-accused Manish Peshwani and the applicant has no active role to play in the prosecution case and prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant has been arrested on 21/06/2015 and entire family is suffering.
Counsel for the respondent/State as well as the complainant, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the 139 applicant, stating that the applicant was fully implicated in the matter and responsible for fraudulent act of appointment and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed subject to the applicant shall give an undertaking in writing before the trial Court that he shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and he shall fully co-operate with the investigaing officer and will not tamper the evidence.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the 140 concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 141 M.Cr.C. No. 5801 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after the prosecutrix has been examined in Court.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 142 M.Cr.C. No. 5792 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for direction to the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously, as possible.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. However, trial Court is directed to complete the trial preferably within 6 months from today.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 143 sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5694 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Upendra Singh Chandrawat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Dinesh Bhel S/o Mangilal has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.177/2015 registered at police station Audhoyogik Chetra, Jaora, District Ratlam for offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel stated that only 63 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized from the joint possession of the applicant along with co- accused. Challan has been put up and the applicant is not longer need for investigation. Counsel submitted that 144 the applicant is a young person of 29 years old and is likely to deteriorate in custody since he has been arrested on 05/05/2015 and hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the applicant is fully implicated in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed. However, by way of abundant caution, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court 145 in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 146 M.Cr.C. No. 5659 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Ranjeet Singh S/o Gopalsingh Rajput has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.177/15 registered at police station Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam for offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, 147 Counsel stated that only 63 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused Dinesh. Challan has been put up and the applicant is not longer needed for investigation. Counsel submitted that the applicant is a young person of 18 years old and is likely to deteriorate in custody since he has been arrested on 16/06/2015 and hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the applicant is fully implicated in the matter. However, she candidly stated that on the basis of report received from Thana Prabhari Industrial Area, Joara, District Ratlam, there are no criminal cases recorded against the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the 148 nature of allegations and the young age of the applicant I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed. However, by way of abundant caution, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m during the 149 pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 150 M.Cr.C. No. 5597 / 2015 17/07/2015 Shri D.S. Patel, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this second application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Nandu @ Jeevan S/o Chandersingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 91/2015 registered at police station A. Badhodiya, District Shajapur for offence under Sections 376, 450 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered It was a case of consent and the prosecutrix was major person and 19 years of age besides of being caught by the cousin brother of the father-in-law the prosecutrix 151 has cried foul. Counsel stated that the applicant has full chance of success in the trial and hence prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant has been arrested on 24/04/2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the applicant is fully implicated in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations, brevity of the offence and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction 152 of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5557 / 2015 153 17/07/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Gurjitsingh S/o Avtarsingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 346/2008 registered at police station-Station Road, District Ratlam for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered Counsel stated that it is incorrect to state that applicant was absconding for a period of 8 years. Additional challan has been put up only then applicant has been implicated. He was not aware of 154 the case filed against him. Moreover Counsel submitted that all the co-accused Manoj Jain and Manish Jain have been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.3870/2009 and M.Cr.C.No.3967/2009, respectively and the present applicant was also entitled to the same since nothing has been recovered from him and no further investigation is also pending and the applicant has full chance of success in the trial and hence Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant has been arrested on 16/06/2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant, however, she candidly admitted that the other co-accused were released on bail.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the 155 interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to 156 take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr. A. No. 311 / 2014 16/07/2015 Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the appellant / State.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the 157 respondents prays for time to keep the respondent No.9 Nandkishore present before this Court.
List on 6th of August, 2015, as prayed. On that date respondent Nandkishore shall remain present before this Court.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.A. No. 382/ 2012 16/07/2015 Shri Sanjay Solanki, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for 158 the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.5291/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence of the appellant.
Appellant Prakash S/o Hazarilal Bairav is present in person and submits that there was a death in his family and hence he could not appear before this Court on 16/06/2015. Appellant undertakes to remain present before this Court / Registry.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the absence is hereby condoned.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence today and he is also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 25/08/2015 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
List on 25th of August, 2015.
159(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.A. No. 607 / 2002 16/07/2015 Ms. Mahim Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant prays for a fixed date to keep the appellant present before this Court.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the appellant.
List on 11th of August, 2015 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 160 sumathi Cr. A. No. 655 / 2003 16/07/2015 Shri Ravi Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
It is reported that appellant No.1 Dharmendra has died on 06/10/2014.
Counsel for the respondent / State is directed to positively verify the same.
List in the week commencing 3rd of August, 2015.
161(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.R. No. 188 / 2015 16/07/2015 Shri Vishal Modiwal, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Documents may be supplied to each other. In the meanwhile, call for record.
List for final disposal along with Cr.R. No.1306/14 in the week commencing 10th August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 162 sumathi Cr.R. No. 279 / 2013 16/07/2015 Ms. Achla Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel is directed to complete the pleadings and handover the copy of documents to each other.
List for final disposal along with Cr.R. No.1313/2012 in the week commencing 10th August, 2015.
163(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.R. No. 834 / 2015 16/07/2015 List tomorrow i.e. 17/07/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.R. No. 1306 / 2014 16/07/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the appellant.
164Shri Vishal Modiwal, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that he has not received copy of the petition along with the annexures.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to handover an extra copy of the petition along with annexures to the Counsel for the respondent within a week.
List along with Cr.R. No.188/2015 in the week commencing 10th August, 2015 for final disposal.
In the meanwhile call for record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.R. No. 1313 / 2012 165 16/07/2015 List along with Cr.R. No.279/2013.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.R. No. 1348 / 2014 16/07/2015 List along with Cr.R. No.1390/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.R. No. 1390 / 2014 166 16/07/2015 Shri Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel is directed to complete the pleadings. List for final disposal along with Cr.R. No.1348/2014 in the week commencing 10th August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr.R. No. 1468 / 2014 16/07/2015 Shri M.A. Bhora, learned Counsel for the appellant.
167Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Record of the lower Court has not been received. Registry is directed to issue fresh requisition.
List in the week commencing 3rd of August, 2015 for the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4047 / 2015 16/07/2015 Shri P.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel 168 along with Shri S.C. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4337 / 2015 16/07/2015 Shri Manish K. Sharma, learned Counsel for 169 the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5103 / 2015 170 16/07/2015 Shri P.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri S.C. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 171 M.Cr.C. No. 6049 / 2015 16/07/2015 Shri Hemendra Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant prays for analogous hearing along with M.Cr.C. No.6050/2015.
List analogously after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi S.A. No. 317 / 2015 16/07/2015 List tomorrow i.e. 17/07/2015.
172(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5008 / 2015 16/07/2015 Ms. Firdose Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time to cure the defects.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel of the applicant.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 173 M.Cr.C. No. 8698 / 2014 15/07/2015 Shri V.A. Katkani, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Kanthed, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
Reserved for order.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 174 Cr.R. No. 1519/ 2014 15/07/2015 Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that suspension of sentence has already been granted to the petitioner on 19/01/2015 besides, short sentence of one year has been imposed for offence under section 354. Counsel prayed that the petition be admitted for final hearing.
Admit.
List for final hearing in the due course.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 175 Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5691/ 2015 15/07/2015 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Sangita W/o Atmaramji Tanwar has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.27/2014 registered at police station Mahila Thana District Ratlam for offence under Sections 498-A, 307/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication and has submitted that the applicant is 60 years old lady and was falsely implicated by the deceased daughter-in-law. The entire family is roped in on the basis of the omnibus 176 statement and the other co-accused Atmaram, Arjun and Jitendra have been granted bail by this Court and hence Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicant would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if she is arrested.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has stated that there are allegations of the applicant having held the hand of the deceased when the pesticide was administered by the husband to the deceased and she prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicant is better advised to surrender herself before the competent Court, Counsel for the applicant has expressed apprehension that the applicant is likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicant shall surrender 177 herself within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 30/07/2015 before the Competent Court and she shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day, in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicant shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicant shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 178 M.Cr.C. No. 4458 / 2015 15/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State submits that she cannot procure the criminal antecedents since the matter pertains to the state of Haryana. She is directed to keep the investigating officer present before this Court on the next occasion and also the record, if it is available. She prays for a fixed date in the matter.
List on 30th of July 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 179 sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 3116 / 2015 15/07/2015 Shri M.L. Sangi, Senior learned Counsel along for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Kishan S/o Galla Bheel has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 592/14 registered at police station Badnawar, District Dhar for offence under Sections 376(D), 366 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is the case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel 180 submitted that the F.I.R was delayed by a period of 2 days and the prosecutrix has left the parental home by collecting her clothes and other articles thereby indicating that she has gone on her consent. Secondly, Counsel submitted that medical evidence on record also does not prove any of the allegations against the applicant. The MLC indicates that there was no intercourse 48 hours prior to the medical examination. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicant is tribal Bheel and there is custom of the woman running away from home. In this light also Counsel submitted that the application be allowed. More so, applicant is 20 years old tribal Bheel and has been falsely implicated in the matter and hence Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed .
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant. She, however, candidly admitted that medical evidences on record does not support the prosecution case but the prosecutrix on her statement 181 under section 164 has admitted rape by the present applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations, young age of the applicant and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
182(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5783 / 2015 15/07/2015 Shri Soumil Ekadi, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Pratap @ Parsiya, Gamla, and Basiram @ Basriya have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.220/2014 registered at police station Nagalwadi, District Barwani for offence under Sections 394 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicants have not been 183 identified in the test identification parade. Moreover the looted gun has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Nooru and the applicants are of young persons of 22 to 28 years of age and have been arrested on 07/03/2015, 24/03/2015 & 31/05/2015 respectively. Hence, Counsel has prayed for grant of bail.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and pointed out that there is single case recorded against the applicant no.2 Gamla u/s 394 of the I.P.C and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant submitted that he does not wish to press the application on behalf of applicant No.2, Gamla. Prayer being reasonable, not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent / State.
In view of the above, the application for grant of 184 bail moved on behalf of applicant No.2 Gamla alone is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
Considering the application on behalf of applicants Pratap @ Parsiya and Basiram @ Basriya is concerned, looking to the nature of allegations, materials collected in the case diary, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail to applicants Pratap @ Parsiya and Basiram @ Basriya and it is hereby allowed. However stringent conditions needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that applicants Pratap @ Parsiya and Basiram @ Basriya be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall 185 attend on each date of hearing of their trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, they shall also mark their presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
186
M.Cr.C. No. 5418 / 2015
15/07/2015
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to verify the medical record as produced by the Counsel for the applicant.
List after two weeks as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 187 M.Cr.C. No. 5154 / 2015 15/07/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant has handed over the certified copies of the judgments, whereby the applicants have been acquitted from all the criminal cases recorded against them. He is directed to hand over the copies of the judgments to the Counsel for the respondent / State for verification.
List the matter tomorrow for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 188 sumathi 189 M.Cr.C. No. 4965 / 2015 15/07/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Govind Nath S/o Kesrilal Yogi has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 117/2015 registered at police station Suvasra, District Mandsaur for offence under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(F)(K)(N), 368, 312 of the I.P.C and 5(1)/6 of Protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel submitted that the none of the offences could not be made out 190 against the applicant. The only allegations against the applicant was that he harboured the main accused Dinesh and the prosecutrix in his house. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix has been to several open places and also looking for accommodation indicating that she was not of very good moral character. The applicant has been arrested on 29/05/2015 and hence Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed .
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant only on the ground that the prosecutrix was only 15½ years of age at the time of the incident. However, she candidly admitted that offence of rape and under section 366(A) could not be made out against the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of 191 allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned 192 police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 193 M.Cr.C. No. 5105 / 2015 15/07/2015 Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State is again praying for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant. She is directed to keep the investigating officer present before this Court on 24th July 2015.
List the matter on 24th of July, 2015 along with the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 194 M.Cr.C. No. 5066 / 2015 15/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Arvind Gokle, learned Counsel for the complainant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time to cure the defects.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 195 Cr. A. No. 612 / 2013 14/07/2015 Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Issue fresh non-bailable warrant against appellant Mahendra, returnable on 27th August, 2015. Seek status report of the proceedings for recovery of forfeited amount from the concerned Magistrate.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi 196 Cr. R. No. 11 / 2015 14/07/2015 None for the petitioner.
List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi 197 Cr. R. No. 122 / 2014 14/07/2015 Shri Kaushal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1 Babulal S/o Chotelal submits that he is not in touch with the petitioner.
Accordingly, issue bailable warrant for Rs.20,000/- against the petitioner No.1, returnable on 27th August, 2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi 198 Cr. R. No. 342 / 2015 14/07/2015 Shri Vikas Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi 199 Cr. R. No. 583 / 2014 14/07/2015 Shri Sameer Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.2120/15, which is an application filed on behalf petitioners Karulal S/o Mangilal, Parasaram S/o Naruram, Kush @ Jagdish S/o Parasram praying that they are labourers and appearing before the registry of this Court is very expensive for them. They have to travel more than 300 k.ms to reach Indore and accordingly, they prayed that they may be allowed to mark their presence before the concerned Court of Judicial Magistrate.
After due consideration, application is allowed. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch on 10th September, 2015 and thereafter, on all subsequent dates fixed by the Magistrate in this regard. Chief Judicial Magistrate is at liberty to transfer the papers of the Court to some other Judicial Magistrate First Class, under his jurisdiction.
Copy of this order be send to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch immediately.
(Alok Verma)
sumathi Judge
200
Cr. R. No. 767 / 2013
14/07/2015
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Akilesh Choudhary, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the parties have entered into compromise. They seek a fixed date for their appearance before this Court.
List the matter on 6th August, 2015.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi 201 Cr. A. No. 481 / 2015 14/07/2015 Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the appellant / State is directed to supply the number of the connected matter arising out of Sessions Trial No.35/2014 for disposal of I.A. No.2374/2015, which is an application for dispensing filing of certified copy of the impugned order.
List after two weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi 202 Cr. A. No. 932 / 2014 14/07/2015 Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent No.7.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the parties have entered into compromise and seeks for withdrawal of this appeal, which is filed against the order of acquittal.
Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has no objection.
Accordingly, prayer allowed. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi 203 M.Cr.C. No. 9485 / 2012 14/07/2015 Shri. Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant seeks three weeks' time to supply correct address of the respondent Ashish Kumar.
Prayer allowed.
List after three weeks.
(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 9898 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for a weeks 204 time to file copies of the statements.
Subject to compliance, list after a week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 205 M.Cr.C. No. 9282 / 2014 10/07/2015 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for grant of temporary bail to the applicant on the ground of medical illness and operation of his mother.
Counsel for the respondent / State is directed to verify the same.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 206 M.Cr.C. No. 268 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent / State to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant. Otherwise, the application shall be considered without the same.
List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 207 M.Cr.C. No. 1838 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 208 sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 2767 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri Rakesh Solanki, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
209(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5498 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant Umesh Sharma S/o Mangilal Sharma has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.268/2015 registered at police station Shujalpur, District Shajapur for offence under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. The applicant had filed a 210 petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 27/04/2015 and in retaliation the aggrieved wife has filed the complaint for offence under Section 498A if the I.P.C. Counsel submitted that it was duly unfortunate that the applicant has a sister who is physically challenged and the wife did not liked to look after the sister and used to often quarrel with the husband. The mother-in-law and father-in-law have already been granted bail under similar circumstances and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicant is a respectable business man and his entire life and career is likely to be placed in jeopardy if he is arrested.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the applicant, stating that the applicant was implicated for offence under sections 498A, 323 and 324 of the I.P.C and in this light also the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. However, Counsel candidly admitted 211 the fact that the mother-in-law and father-in-law were granted bail and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail for the period of 30 days (thirty days) upon his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his further appearance as and when directed.
The applicant shall apply for regular bail within the aforesaid period of 30 days which shall be dealt by the trial Court in accordance with law.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide 212 by all the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5528 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.
213In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. Needless to say that the applicant shall surrender himself in accordance with the provisions of law.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 2867 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Niru S/o Galji Damor Bhil, has moved the 4th 214 application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No.53/2014 registered at police station Thandla, District Jhabua for offence under Sections 8 / 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged the fact that although this is fourth application moved on behalf of the applicant, Counsel submitted that under similar circumstances, in M.Cr.C. No.2545/14, the accused Ranchhod has been granted bail and in M.Cr.C. No.10659/14, the accused Mathul has been granted bail. Counsel submitted that on the ground of parity and also on the ground that both the recovery witnesses have turned hostile in Court and prosecution case is crumbled, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed since the applicant is in custody from 31/01/2014.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of 215 allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial. However, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of their trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, they shall also mark their presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking their presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in 216 custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4074 / 2015 10/07/2015 Shri Rampal Uikey, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the 217 Cr.P.C., applicants Poonam Lal @ Babalji S/o Lal Singh Rathore, and Anwar Lal S/o Rabansingh have moved the 3rd application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No.231/2014 registered at police station Khargone, District Khargone for offence under Sections 380, 457 of I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants vehemently urged the fact that although this is third application moved on behalf of the applicants, there is criminal record of three cases against the applicants. The applicants have been granted bail in the other cases and prayed for same benefit in this case also.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has drawn objection that the applicants are habitual offender and no sympathy be extended to them and prayed for dismissal of their application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary 218 and the fact that three are cases of the same nature were pending before the trial Court, I find that there is no merit in the application and it is hereby dismissed as such.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 2131 / 2014 09/07/2015 Shri Vivek Nagar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 / State.
Shri M.I. Khan, learned Counsel for the 219 respondent Nos. 2 &3.
After arguing for some time, it was found that documents filed by the applicant on 04/06/2015 are not available on record.
Registry is directed to append the same. List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 9405 / 2014
09/07/2015
Shri T.K. Modi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.4794/2015, which is an 220 application for condonation of delay occasioned in filing the process fee by registered A.D mode.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay is hereby condoned.
Registry is directed to issue notice by registered A.D to the respondent as expeditiously as possible.
List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. A. No. 63 / 2015
09/07/2015
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for 221 the appellant/State.
Shri Amit Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time to keep the respondent Gheesalal present before this Court.
List on 28/07/2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 2640 / 2015 09/07/2015 Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is 222 granted to the Counsel for the respondent / State.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 773 / 2015
09/07/2015
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the non-applicant / CBN prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
223 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M.Cr.C. No. 696 / 2015 09/07/2015
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent / State.
List in the next week, as prayed.
224 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 225 M.Cr.C. No. 3479 / 2015 09/07/2015
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after some time.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
226
M.Cr.C. No.5416 / 15 & M.Cr.C. No.5474 / 15 09/07/2015 Shri Akshat Pahadia & Shri R.S. Bais, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
These two applications are taken up together since they arise out of the same crime number registered at same police station.
By these applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicants Ritesh Singh and Amit have moved the applications for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No. 68/2015 registered at police station Rajendra Nagar, District Indore for offence under Section 394 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants have 227 vehemently urged the fact that both the applicants are students and have been falsely implicated in the matter. There was private dispute between two college groups the complainant and the applicants were known to each other and previous enmity could not be ruled out. Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicants would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if they are arrested.
Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, had opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants stating that the complainant has identified the applicant on the face-book on the internet and photographs are available and the investigation is not yet over and hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions 228 and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicants are better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court. At this juncture, Counsel for the applicants have expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 23/07/2015 before the Competent Court and they shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day of its presentation before the Competent Court in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be 229 considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, these applications are disposed of.
Original order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No.5416/2015 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No.5474/2015.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
230
M.Cr.C. No.5474 /15
09/07/2015
Shri R.S. Bais, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
In view of the detailed order passed in M.Cr.C. No.5416/2015 by me today, this application also stands disposed of. Copy of the main order be placed in this File.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 9978 / 2014
09/07/2015
Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the 231 Cr.P.C., the applicant Suresh S/o Prathvipal Yadav, has moved the 4th application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 294/2013 registered at police station Banganga, District Indore for offence under Sections 302, 307, 450, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication, even if the prosecution allegations are considered all the co-accused were already been granted bail. Counsel submitted that the applicant has full chance of success in the trial. She also stated that the present applicant had caused injury on the thigh and the deceased had died out of the cumulative effect of the injuries and hence, Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the applicant has criminal record and there are several cases 232 listed against him. Moreover the applicant has caused a grave injury on the left thigh of the deceased with his knife and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that there is no merit in the application and it is hereby dismissed as such.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. A. No. 831 / 2015
08/07/2015
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
233Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on admission.
Admit. Call for the record.
At this juncture, Counsel prays for grant of suspension of sentence and bail vide I.A. No.4815/15. Counsel submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter and even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submits that short sentence of three years has been imposed for offence under Section 329 of the IPC. Moreover the applicant was granted bail during the trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him. Counsel prayed for grant of suspension of sentence.
Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant and stated that the 234 offence was quite grave in nature and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and the material available on record, I find that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of jail sentence. The application I.A. No.4815/15 stands allowed.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to paying the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) with a local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 10th of August, 2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.
235CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr. A. No. 712 / 2015 08/07/2015 Shri Banne Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Call for record and list on I.A. No.4330/15.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 236 Cr. A. No. 810 / 2015 08/07/2015 Ku. S. Joglekar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that she does not wish to press the application No.4695/2015, since there are some discrepancies in the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
Heard on admission.
Admit. Call for the record.
At this juncture, Counsel prays for grant of suspension of sentence and bail vide I.A. No.4767/15. Counsel submits that short sentence 237 has been imposed for offence under Section 354(A)(D) and 452 of the IPC. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submits that the appellant has not touched the prosecutrix and he is only 27 years of age and prayed for grant of suspension of sentence. Moreover the appellant was granted bail during the trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him.
Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant and stating that offence under section 452 is made out and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the material available on record, looking to the short sentence involved and the young age of the appellant, I find that the application needs to be allowed. The application I.A. No.4767/15 is, 238 therefore, allowed.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to paying the fine amount, if any, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) with a local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 25th of August, 2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office. In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.
CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. A. No. 813 / 2015
08/07/2015
Shri Ashish Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
239Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on admission.
Admit. Call for the record.
At this juncture, Counsel prays for grant of suspension of sentence I.A. No.4720/15.
List on suspension of sentence as soon as the record is received.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr. A. No. 363/ 2014 08/07/2015 240 Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after a period of three months.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr. A. No. 236 / 1999 241 08/07/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged the fact that the appellant has been regularly marking his presence, but could not appear on 14/05/2015. He prays for any singular date to keep the appellant present.
List on 30th July 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5700 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Arvind Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A. No.4883/15, which is an 242 application for dispensing with filing power.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.
M.Cr.C. is taken up for admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within two week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 5638 / 2015
07/07/2015
Shri Ashok Yaduwanshi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
243Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5291 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant prays for time to cure the defects pointed by the registry.
244Subject to compliance, list after a week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
245
M.Cr.C. No. 5497 / 2015
07/07/2015
Smt. Kiran Gohar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Satyanarayan Prajapath has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.355/2015 registered at police station Manak Chowk, Ratlam (M.P.) for offence under Sections 498A, 342, 506/34 of the IPC .
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel stated that there is omnibus statement regarding the involvement of present applicant. First two applicants are 60 and 63 246 years of age and whereas the sister-in-law has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicant would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if he is arrested.
Counsel for the respondent / State per contra drawn the attention of this Court to the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the complainant/daughter-in-law, submitting that she has categorically stated that she was subjected to beating and demand of dowry was persistent immediately after two to three months of marriage and hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicant is better advised to surrender himself 247 before the competent Court. At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant has expressed apprehension that the applicant is likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicant shall surrender himself within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 21/07/2015 before the Competent Court and he shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day of its presentation before the Competent Court in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicant shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the 248 applicant shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5005 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Prakash Patel, learned Counsel for 249 the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that he would like to file challan papers. Case diary is not available.
Subject to filing challan papers, list on Thursday i.e. on 9th of July, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4955 / 2015 250 07/07/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 251 M.Cr.C. No. 3122 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed certain documents to reinforce his arguments which are available on record. Today a copy has been handed over to the Counsel for the respondent State.
In view of the above, list for disposal on Thursday i.e. on 09/07/2015 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 2690 / 2015 252 07/07/2015 Shri O.P. Solanki, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent /State prays for one last opportunity to produce the affidavit of the investigating officer.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity of one weeks time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent / state to file the same.
Subject to compliance, list after a week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 2067 / 2015 07/07/2015 253 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after a month.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 254 M.Cr.C. No. 2026 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 255 M.Cr.C. No. 1945 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent/ State.
List in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 256 M. A. No. 1120 / 2014 07/07/2015 None appears to press the I.A. No.419/2015, which is an application for striking out the defect pointed out by the registry.
Registry to verify whether the application is maintainable and to file a written report by the O.S.D. List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr. R. No. 757 / 2015 257 07/07/2015 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time. By way of indulgence, last opportunity of one weeks time is granted to the applicant.
List after a week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 258 M. A. No. 147 / 2014 07/07/2015 None appears to press the I.A. No.5788/14, which is an application for extension of time to deposit the Court fee. Time has been consistently granted to the applicant since the month of July, 2014. Peremptory orders have already been passed and earlier application I.A. No.5768/14 also pertains to extension of time to pay deficit Court fees.
In view of the above, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed for want of payment of Court fee.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 259 Cr. R. No. 716 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Basant Kumar Sitole, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that although he had moved application I.A. No.4788/15 for exemption from filing certified copy, he now prays for time to file the same.
Counsel for the petitioner is granted three weeks time for the same.
List after three weeks for certified copy, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 260 Cr. R. No. 689 / 2015 07/07/2015 None for the parties.
Counsel for the appellant is granted one weeks time to cure the defects as pointed out by the registry.
Subject to compliance, list after a week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 261 Cr. R. No. 643 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
By this revision petition under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act 1984, applicant Kalulal S/o Jeetmal Nayak has challenged the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Neemuch, District Neemuch in Misc. Cr. Case No.292/14 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 125 (4) (5) and 127 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the maintenance granted to the wife. It was stated in the said application that the offences under section 498A was not proved against the petitioner and he was acquitted from the said offence and hence the wife was not entitled to the maintenance, since she was living separately and one of the grounds was that demand of dowry was made by the husband and his family.
Learned Judge of the lower Court had held that --- mere offences cannot entitle the petitioner to be exempted from paying maintenance. Maintenance is the right of the separated wife and admittedly wife is living with her 262 parents and has no source of livelihood.
In this view of the matter, I did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court.
The revisional jurisdiction of this Court being limited findings arrived at concurrently by both the Courts below are unassailable in revision before this Court. So also, it is trite law to state that this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not expected to re-appreciate evidence merely to take a different view of the matter. There is no apparent error on the face of record or as to any question of law, none seems to be apparent on record. The revision being devoid of any merits, is therefore, dismissed as sans merit.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 263 Cr. R. No. 673 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri M.A. Pathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent had candidly admitted that the petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the trial has already been -----. However, Counsel for the petitioner had made a fervent prayer that the grounds raised in this revision petition may be allowed to be raised in the appeal.
Prayer being reasonable, is accepted. Dismissal of this petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner raising grounds in appeal if its dismissal is necessary under the circumstances. Needless to say that this Court is not making any comment in the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 264 Cr. A. No. 808 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Bharat Malviya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.4686/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay. 40 days delay has been occasioned in filing the present appeal and the same may be condoned since the family, on learning, had been informed by the appellant in jail regarding the limitation.
Delay is, therefore, condoned and the appeal is taken up for admission.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Call for record.
List thereafter.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 265 Cr. A. Nos. 1463/14, 1465/14, 1473/14, 1474/14 & 1481/14 07/07/2015 None for the parties.
There is no service report regarding respondent(s), as prescribed under provisions of amended High Court Rules.
Registry to verify and do the needful. List after four weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5638 / 2015 266 07/07/2015 Shri Ashok Yaduwanshi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5005 / 2015 07/07/2015 267 Shri Prakash Patel, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that he would like to file challan papers. Case diary is not available.
Subject to filing challan papers, list on Thursday i.e. on 9th of July, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 2067 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for 268 the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application. However, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after a month.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4955 / 2015 07/07/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel 269 for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5497 / 2015 07/07/2015 Smt. Kiran Gohar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for 270 the respondent /State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Satyanarayan Prajapath has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.355/2015 registered at police station Manak Chowk, Ratlam (M.P.) for offence under Sections 498A, 342, 506/34 of the IPC .
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication and even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel stated that there is omnibus statement regarding the involvement of present applicant. First two applicants are 60 and 63 years of age and whereas the sister-in-law has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicant would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if he is arrested.
271Counsel for the respondent / State per contra drawn the attention of this Court to the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the complainant/daughter-in-law, submitting that she has categorically stated that she was subjected to beating and demand of dowry was persistent immediately after two to three months of marriage and hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicant is better advised to surrender himself before the competent Court. At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant has expressed apprehension that the applicant is likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is 272 partly allowed to the extent that the applicant shall surrender himself within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 21/07/2015 before the Competent Court and he shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day of its presentation before the Competent Court in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicant shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicant shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
273C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 274 S.A. No. 206 / 2014 06/07/2015 Shri Ashok Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Heard on admission.
Let the second appeal be admitted on the following substantial question of law:
1.Whether the learned Courts below erred in passing a decree of eviction under Section 12(1)
(f) of the Act when the alternative accommodation was available to the plaintiff ?
2.Whether the learned Courts below erred in failing to consider that the suit framed at the time 275 of institution itself was not maintainable under the provisions of law ?
Any other questions may be raised at the time of final hearing.
In the meanwhile, I.R. granted on 08/05/2014 shall continue till the final decision of this appeal.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 276 M.Cr.C. No.8080/2014 06/07/2015 Shri S.I. Ansari learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time. List after two weeks, as prayed. At this juncture, Counsel for the respondent prays for analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. No.2947/2015.
List analogously after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 277 M.Cr.C. No. 5509 / 2015 06/07/2015 Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time. List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 278 M.Cr.C. No. 5453 / 2015 06/07/2015 Shri Z.A. Khan, Senior learned Counsel along with Shri Ajit Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Sandeep Jain has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 111/2015 registered at police station Hatod, District Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant is 29 years old youth and has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel, however, submitted that if at all mistake has been committed, the applicant is willing to 279 deposit the entire amount of Rs.95,000/- about the mis-used cheque belonging to the complainant. The co-accused Nishant Jain has been granted bail in M.Cr.C. No.4481/2015. Moreover, Counsel stated that it was in connivance with one Ram Singh Katiyar that the cheque has been encashed and the applicant has no active role in the fraud committed and Counsel prayed that conditional bail may be granted to the applicant, considering the young age of the applicant and the fact that the applicant is likely to deteriorate in custody.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the applicant was mainly responsible for mis-use of the cheque and he was an Insurance Agent to whom the complainant has given the cheque and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of 280 allegations, materials collected in the case diary and the fact that the applicant is young person and the co-accused has been granted bail, I find that the application needs to be allowed subject to applicant depositing the entire amount of Rs.95,000/- in the Trial Court. Only on this condition the bail shall be granted by the Trial Court. However, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In 281 addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge F.A. No. 139/ 2015 282 06/07/2015 Shri Sameer Athawle, learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears to represent the respondent though served.
Let the appeal be admitted for final hearing.
Last opportunity is granted to the respondents to argue on I.A. No.1202/2015.
List in the week commencing 27th of July, 2015.
I.R. granted earlier, to continue till the next date of hearing.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Cr. A. No.905/2012 283 06/07/2015 Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Counsel for the complainant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Counsel submitted that the compromise can be taken on record and the matter can be disposed of .
On considering the facts, I find that the prayer is reasonable, however, the appellant is in custody and therefore, let production warrant be issued for his presence before this Court on 10th of August, 2015.
List on 10th of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Conc No. 242 / 2015
284
06/07/2015
Shri Rahul Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Hardiya, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3, prays for time to file reply. He is granted two weeks time.
Await service report regarding respondent Nos.1 & 2. Registry to verify and do the needful.
List in the week commencing 20th of July 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Conc No. 202 / 2015
06/07/2015
Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the 285 petitioner.
Shri Akash Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2, prays for time to file reply. He is granted two weeks time to do so.
Await service report regarding respondent Nos.1 & 3. Registry to verify and do the needful.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Conc No. 900/2014
06/07/2015
Shri R.K. Pandagre, learned Counsel for 286 the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within two week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi Conc No. 844 / 2014 06/07/2015 Ms Mahim Pandey, learned Counsel for 287 the petitioner.
Heard on I.A. No.4903/2015, which is an application for amendment in the cause title.
Counsel submitted that due to inadvertence one of the parties has not been made respondent as a party. She prays that the application be allowed and Ms. Sushila Gupta, Controller, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya, Jabalpur, be made party respondent No.4.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to amend the cause title of the memo of the petition within three days from today.
Subject to compliance, Counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay process regarding newly added respondent.
Counsel prays that she is willing to serve 288 Humdust notice.
Registry is directed to prepare Humdust service on payment of proper process within a week and hand over the same to the Counsel for the respondent.
List for the compliance report in the week commencing 20th of July, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
MCC No. 598/2014
06/07/2015
Shri Rahul Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to serve on respondent No.2, 3 & 4 through the Counsel who appeared in the earlier round of litigation in the Review 289 petition no.393/2010.
He is granted two weeks time to serve notices afresh on the respondents through their Counsel.
Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondents on payment of proper process and hand over the same to the Counsel for the petitioner. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 290 Conc No. 754 / 2014 06/07/2015 Shri Santosh Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Hardiya, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3, prays for one last opportunity to file reply to the petition.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to all the respondents to file reply. Failure to do so and the notice shall be made absolute.
List on 21st of July, 2015 for the reply. No further adjournment shall be granted.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
S.A. No. 459 / 2014
291
06/07/2015
Shri V.K. Varangaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for time to address his point on admission.
List in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi MCC No. 673/2014 06/07/2015 292 None for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi S.A. No. 242 / 2015 06/07/2015 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel 293 for the appellant.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.4934/15, which is an application for grant of stay.
Counsel for the appellant prays for analogous hearing with S.A. No.241/2015.
List on 29/07/2015 for analogous hearing, as prayed.
In the meanwhile, the appellant shall not be dispossessed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5226 / 2015 06/07/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
294Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application, however, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after the prosecutrix has been examined.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 295 M.Cr.C. No. 5367 / 2015 06/07/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Shri Prakash Shrivas, learned Counsel for the objector.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Manish Tambholi has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 1254/14 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474, 465, 120B/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. And later on there has been 296 additions in the number of offences registered. Also Counsel stated that the present applicant Manish Tambholi was the employee of main accused Manish Peshwani who has used his e-mail ID for fraudulently appointing directors illegally and the main allegations are against the other persons and only allegation against the present applicant is that his e-mail ID was used in the offence. Counsel submitted that the applicant has no role to play in the prosecution case and prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the applicant was fully implicated in the matter.
Counsel for the objector, however, has vehemently urged the fact that the present applicant was fully conscious since his e-mail ID has been utilised by Manish Peshwani, who is his employer, the fact was in the knowledge of the 297 applicant and he should have reported the matter to the police and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed. However, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In 298 addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 299 M.Cr.C. No. 5554 / 2015 06/07/2015
Shri Kaushal Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the applicant prayed for analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. No.5396/2015 & M.Cr.C. No. 5397/2015.
List analogously, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 300 sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5548 / 2015 06/07/2015 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Ramesh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 631/2015 registered at police station Jhabua, District Jhabua for offence 301 under Sections 354, 376 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was 22 years of age and medical evidences on record does not support the prosecution case. The applicant has been arrested on 09/04/2015 and Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed .
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the prosecutrix has made allegations of rape against the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of 302 allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 303 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 304 M.Cr.C. No. 5462 / 2015 06/07/2015 Shri Jitendra Mandloi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been acquitted in both the cases recorded against him.
Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to verify the criminal record.
List in the next week for disposal, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 305 M.Cr.C. No. 5252/ 2015 03/07/2015 Smt. Bhagyashree Sugandi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Salman S/o Mohd. Aarif Khan has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 382/2015 registered at police station Pachore, District Rajgarh for offence under Sections 376,506 of the I.P.C & 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel submitted 306 that the applicant himself was only 20 years of age and it is an affair of heart. The prosecutrix was on the verge of attaining majority and her parents have filed anti dated F.I.R. Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed .
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the prosecutrix in her statement has, however, made allegations of rape against the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the 307 satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4500 / 2015 03/07/2015 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned 308 Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Dilip Nagar S/o Premsingh Nagar has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 56/2015 registered at police station Leemachouhan, District Rajgarh for offence under Sections 306 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant was disabled person with disability to the tune of 80% in his legs and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel submitted that the statement was recorded almost after a period of 20 days and the applicant has been arrested on 30/03/2015. He relied on Bhagwan Das v. Katar Singh and others [2008(1) Supreme Court Cses (Cri) 664] to indicate that for the offence of abettment to commit suicide, mere 309 disputes or differences, without anything more, pursuant to which if the wife committed suicide is not sufficient and, it was held by the Apex Court that it will not attract S.306 r/w S.107. And Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the deceased was being subjected to physical cruelty and the applicant was addicted to alcohol and she prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that all the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 310 thousand only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of hisr trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody.
It is also directed that the applicant shall 311 abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4680 / 2015 03/07/2015 Shri Ajay Vyas, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Shannobi has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 653/15 registered at police station Chandan Nagar, District Indore for offences under 312 Sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the both the applicants are alleged to have been falsely implicated in the matter and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel submitted that the only 62.46 litres of illegal liquor has been seized from the possession of the present applicants jointly and not more than commercial quantity and hence Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed .
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant. She however, candidly admitted that on the basis of the report received from Thana Prabhari Chandan Nagar, Indore, the applicants did not have any criminal case recorded against them and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the 313 impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed. However by way of abundant caution stringent conditions needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that all the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicants shall attend on each date of hearing of their trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, they shall also mark their presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 a.m 314 during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking their presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody.
It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5542 / 2015 03/07/2015 Shri A.M. Mathur, Senior learned Counsel along with Shri Anant Soni, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel 315 for the respondent / State.
Shri -----------, learned Counsel for the objector.
Orders passed in separate sheets.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
W.A. No.356/14
03/07/2015
None appears to press the application. Adjourned.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (S.C.
Sharma)
316
Judge Judge
sumathi
W.A. No.187/15
03/07/2015
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant / State prays for time.
List on next friday.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (S.C.
Sharma)
Judge Judge
sumathi
317
W.A. No.783/14
03/07/2015
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant / State prays for time.
List on next friday.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (S.C.
Sharma)
Judge Judge
sumathi
W.A. No.356/14
03/07/2015
None appears to press the application. Adjourned.
318 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (S.C.
Sharma)
Judge Judge
sumathi
W.A. No.187/15
03/07/2015
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant / State prays for time.
List on next friday.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (S.C.
Sharma)
Judge Judge
319
sumathi
W.A. No.783/14
03/07/2015
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant / State prays for time.
List on next friday.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (S.C.
Sharma)
Judge Judge
sumathi
320
W.A. Nos.222/08, 217/08, 220/08, 221/08, 223/08, 229/08, 242/08, 243/08, 244/08, 245/08, 248/08, 251/08, 266/08, 267/08, 271/08, 272/08, 340/08, 345/08, 735/08, 736/08, 737/08, 738/08, 739/08, 740/08, 744/08, 745/08, 746/08, 748/08, 749/08, 944/08, 945/08, 946/08, 947/08, 948/08, 949/50, 950/08, 951/08, 952/08, 30/09, 31/09, 32/09, 33/09, 134/09, 175/09, 110/10, 395/2013 03/07/2015 Shri Sudharshan Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Verma & Shri Nazar Haider on behalf of Shri Gaurav Chabbra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 2 to 4 /State.
Since none appears to oppose the application for amendment, it is allowed. Reply has not been filed despite grant of time. Respondent to carry out amendment in the writ petition by placing a copy of 321 the amendment application in the W.P. No.1028/2005.
List for final hearing in the month of August, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (S.C. Sharma)
Judge Judge
sumathi
322
M.Cr.C. No. 3759 / 2015
03/07/2015
Shri R.K. Gondale, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / state prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent / State to do so otherwise, the application shall be considered without the same.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
323
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 3894 / 2015
03/07/2015
Shri Subodh Abyankar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / state prays for time to produce the case diary.
At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant submits that the challan papers have already been filed.
In view of the above, list in the next week, as prayed.
324 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M.Cr.C. No. 3904 / 2015 03/07/2015
Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / state prays for time to produce the case diary.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent / State. No further opportunity can be granted.
List in the next week for final disposal, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R.
325
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 3940 / 2015
03/07/2015
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / state.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Kendu S/o Burla Bhil, has moved the 6th application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 79/2011 registered at police station Alirajpur, District Alirajpur for offence under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,205 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that this is the 6th bail application moved on behalf of the applicant and more than 2 326 1/2 years have passed in custody and the entire family was suffering and hence the Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the petitioner was fully implicated in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that no new ground has been made out except the fact that the applicant has undergone long period in custody. Therefore, there is no merit in the application and it is dismissed as such.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 327 M.Cr.C. No. 3930 / 2015 03/07/2015 Shri Shahazad Ahmad Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / state.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Nadeem @ Shera S/o Abdul Kadar Musalman, has moved the 6th application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 309/14 registered at police station Jaora, District Ratlam for offence under Sections 3/6 (1) (A)(B) of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that this is the 6th bail application moved on behalf of the applicant and more than 9 months have passed in custody and the entire 328 family was suffering. Almost all the co-accused have granted bail by this Court and hence, Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the there are four criminal cases against the applicant out of which he may have been acquitted in a few and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that no new ground has been made out except the fact that the applicant has undergone long period in custody. Therefore, there is no merit in the application and it is dismissed as such.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 329 sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4260 / 2015 03/07/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Nana @ Ajay S/o Ramsingh Mankar has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 77/2014 registered at police station Karhi, District Khargone for offence under Sections 363,366,376,368 of the I.P.C & 3,4,5,6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix is married to the 330 accused and she is pregnant at the moment. Since the applicant was arrested on 16/01/2015 and has a full chances of success in the trial, Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed .
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the prosecutrix is minor and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, and the affidavit filed by the husband and wife indicating that they wish to live together and the fact that the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) 331 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 3971 / 2015 03/07/2015 Shri C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for 332 the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4667 / 2015 03/07/2015 Shri O.P. Solanki, learned Counsel for the applicant.
333Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application, However, Counsel prays for liberty to file fresh application after some material witness are examined.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty as prayed for is granted.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.3947/2015 03/07/2015 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
334Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent / State.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 5420 / 2015
02/07/2015
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent / state.
335By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Naushad Sheikh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 102/2015 registered at police station Police Station Depalpur, District Indore for offence under Sections 363, 376(D)/34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and even if the prosecution allegations are considered the Counsel submitted that on the date of incident i.e. on 31/03/2015 the prosecutrix had gone along with applicant and two others in the motor cycle and they were accosted by the uncle of the prosecutrix Rakesh and hence the prosecutrix got down from the motor cycle and left with her uncle. F.I.R., however, has been improved upon by the father of the prosecutrix on the next day on this very ground alone the malafide of the complainant party are confirmed. Since the applicant is a young person of 336 28 years age and the entire family is dependent on him for livelihood Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed since the applicant was arrested on 31/03/2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the prosecutrix is minor. She however admitted that the F.I.R. had been improved upon on the next day by the father and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and it is hereby allowed. The application is, therefore, allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) 337 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5157 / 2015 02/07/2015 Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Moti S/o Amar 338 Singh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.18/2015 registered at police station Sundersi, District Shajapur for offence under Sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant Mohit is only 20 years of age and has been falsely implicated in the matter. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that only 56 liters of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant. Moreover Counsel submitted that the applicant has been arrested on 15/06/2015 and he is likely to deteriorate in custody. Counsel further stated that applicant has a full chances of success in the trial if at all this is the first time the applicant has been arrested. Hence, Counsel has prayed for grant of bail.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the 339 other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant was fully implicated in the offence. and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed considering the young age of the applicant. However, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by 340 the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
341(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi 342 M.Cr.C. No. 5033 / 2015 02/07/2015 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the non applicant /complainant.
Documents filed by the Counsel for the applicant are taken on record.
Counsel for the applicant prays for a short adjournment.
Case is adjourned, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5137 / 2015 343 02/07/2015 Shri K.L. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.
Counsel for the respondent/State prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do so.
List in the next week, for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5078 / 2015 02/07/2015 344 Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / state.
By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Gopal has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No. 44/15 registered at police station P.S. Chandan Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 of the I.P.C.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication and has submitted that the applicant is an old person of 67 years and retired a government servant and he would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if he is arrested. Counsel aslo submitted that the dying declaration completely exonerated the applicant. The omnibus statement was also made out against the deceased's husband. The applicant has full chances of success in the 345 trial. In view of the above, Counsel prayed that the application for grant of bail be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant, stating that the applicant was fully involved in the offence and prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and looking to the nature of allegations and materials collected in the case diary, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The application is, therefore, allowed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
346It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 5109 / 2015 02/07/2015 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for 347 the respondent /State.
Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed. In the meanwhile, learned Counsel for the respondent / State is directed to call for the case diary of the cross case registered at Police Station Malawar, District Rajgargh.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No. 4943/2015 02/07/2015 Shri Rizwan Nizam learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
348After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 5118 / 2015
02/07/2015
Shri L.S. Chandiramani, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for 349 the respondent /State.
By this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Azharuddin has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.301/2015 registered at police station Pithampur, District Dhar for offence under Sections 25, 27-A of the Arms Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that two country made pistols were seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is only a 27 years labourer and due to his arrest the entire family is suffering and Counsel has prayed for grant of bail. Counsel also submitted that if at all this is the first time the applicant is arrested and this Court to take a lenient view of the matter.
350Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has however candidly admitted that there was no other criminal cases recorded against the applicant on the basis of the report received from Thana Prabhari, Police Station Pithampur, District Dhar and Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed considering the young age of the applicant. However, stringent condition needs to be imposed.
It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty 351 thousand only) with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing of his trial before the concerned Court out of which this bail arises. In addition, he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall 352 abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi M.Cr.C. No.4762/2015 02/07/2015 Shri R.S. Raghuwanshi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the non applicant / complainant.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Prabodh Upadhyay has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail 353 being implicated in Crime No.46/2015 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Indore (M.P.) for offence under Sections 498A, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant is a young person of 31 years old and within three years of marriage, there has been dispute and the applicant has served notice for declaration of the marriage to be void and civil proceedings are pending before the Family Court, Indore and as a retaliation the non applicant / wife has filed the complaint immediately thereafter making allegations for demand of dowry. Counsel also submitted that non applicant/wife was a patient of schizophrenia as a result of U.T. infection that she suffered soon after her marriage. She has threatened suicide and falsely implicated the applicant. Whereas the applicant is working as a manager in the international service division of H.S.B.C. Bank.
354Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicant is likely to loose his job and would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if he is arrested.
Counsel for the non applicant as well as for the respondent / State, on the other hand, had vehemently opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that the likelihood of the applicant absconding looking to the nature of the job he is involved in; besides the wife is subjected to physical violence and demand of dowry within three months of marriage and the wife fears for her life and hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicant is better advised to surrender himself before the competent Court. At this juncture, Counsel for the 355 applicant has expressed apprehension that the applicant is likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicant shall surrender himself within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 16/07/2015 before the Competent Court and he shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day of its presentation before the Competent Court in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicant shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicant shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is 356 disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No.4997/2015
02/07/2015
Smt. Anita Sharma, learned Counsel with Shri Tayjas Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Sushil Pandey has moved the application for grant of anticipatory 357 bail being implicated in Crime No.95/2015 registered at police station Chhoti Gwal Toli, Indore (M.P.) for offence under Sections 420,468,471 of the IPC.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant is a 30 years old government servant and has been falsely implicated in the matter. The applicant has been routinely channelising his papers through the approved channel from time to time despite which false case has been thrusted on the applicant stating that the transfer order, itself, was forged by the applicant. Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicant is likely to be removed from his services and would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if he is arrested.
Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the 358 Counsel for the applicant stating that upon verification it was found that a forged transfer order was prepared by the applicant and the applicant does not deserve any sympathy for grant of anticipatory bail and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicant is better advised to surrender himself before the competent Court. Counsel for the applicant has expressed apprehension that the applicant is likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicant shall surrender himself within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 16/07/2015 before the Competent Court and he shall file application 359 for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered forthwith on the same day of its presentation before the Competent Court in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicant shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicant shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 360 sumathi Judge 361 M.Cr.C. No.5128/2015 02/07/2015 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous and prays for withdrawal of the same.
The petition is therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
362
M.Cr.C. No.4882/2015
02/07/2015
Shri Anil Ohja, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / State prays for time to produce case diary.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent / State.
List on friday i.e. on 03/07/2015.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No.4997/2015
02/07/2015
Smt. Anita Sharma, learned Counsel with 363 Shri Tayjas Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Sushil Pandey has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.95/2015 registered at police station Chhoti Gwal Toli, Indore (M.P.) for offence under Sections 420,468,471 of the IPC.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant is a 30 years old government servant and has been falsely implicated in the matter. The applicant has been routinely channelising his papers through the approved channel from time to time despite which false case has been thrusted on the applicant stating that the transfer order itself 364 was forged by the applicant. Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicant is likely to be removed from his services and would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if he is arrested.
Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant stating that upon verification it was found that a forged transfer order was prepared by the applicant and the applicant do not deserve any sympathy for grant of anticipatory bail and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the interest of justice, the applicant is better advised to surrender himself before the competent Court. Counsel for the 365 applicant has expressed apprehension that the applicant is likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicant shall surrender himself within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 16/07/2015 before the Competent Court and he shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered forthwith on the same day of its presentation before the Competent Court in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicant shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicant shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to 366 this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
367
M.Cr.C. No.5128/2015
02/07/2015
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous and prays for withdrawal of the same.
The petition is therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
368
M.Cr.C. No. 4815/2015
02/07/2015
Shri Anupam Chouhan learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
After arguing for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press the application.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of the above, this application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
369
Cr. R. No. 399 / 2014
01/07/2015
Smt. Rukmani Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent, though served. On 13/05/2015, this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit the maintenance amount in the lower Court along with other outstanding amount.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to verify.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to do so.
List for final disposal on 16th of July, 2015 (Thursday), as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
370
Cr. R. No.567/2015
01/07/2015
Shri Atul E.R. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for analogous hearing along with M.Cr.C. No.1239/2015.
Registry is directed to verify and do the needful.
List analogously on 17/07/2015.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
371
M.Cr.C. No.5237/2015
01/07/2015
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent / State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the defects as pointed by the registry have been cured.
Registry is directed to verify and do the needful.
List in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Conc. No.338/2015
372
01/07/2015
Ms. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.A. No.1120/2015
373
01/07/2015
Shri P. Pancholi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
In the meanwhile, call for record. List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
374
Cr. R. No.734/2015
01/07/2015
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall continue paying the maintenance as directed by the Trial Court.
Subject to which, list on I.A., after the respondents are served.
(Mrs. S.R.
Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
375
M.A. No.1233/2015
01/07/2015
Shri Ravindra Chabbra, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
At this juncture, learned Counsel prays that the respondent No.5 be restrained from issuing duplicate share certificate to respondent No.4.
Considering the above submissions, it is directed that the respondent No.5 shall not issue duplicate certificate till all the respondents are served.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall be vacated and the appeal also shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
C.C. as per rules.
376 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr. R. No.99/2014 01/07/2015
Kumari Archana Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S Samvatsar, learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time .
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr. R. No.802/2013 01/07/2015 None for the petitioners.
There is no service report regarding respondent, as prescribed under provisions of amended High Court Rules.
377Registry to verify and do the needful. List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.Cr.C. No.4949/2015
01/07/2015
Shri Pranay Ohja, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A. No.4398/2015, which is an application for grant of stay over the proceeding before the Court below.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be 378 dismissed without reference to this Court.
On considering the fact that the petition has already been admitted, the application is also allowed in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, directed that the proceedings in complaint No.2828/2013 pending before J.M.F.C., Ratlam shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.936/2014
01/07/2015
Shri Wajid M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Heena Ansari, learned Counsel on 379 behalf of Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner Smt. Harpreet Kaur is present in person.
Learned Counsel for the respondent prays for short adjournment.
The prayer is vehemently opposed by the petitioner along with her Counsel submitting that not a single paisa has been paid towards the maintenance.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the respondent. It is directed that reconciliation may be worked out.
In this light it is, therefore, directed the respondent Ranjeet Singh Khanuja to remain present before this Court in the next date of hearing.
Counsel for the respondent prays for a fixed date in the matter.
380List on 15th of July, 2015.
Both the parties are directed to remain present on that day.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
381
Cr. R. No.660/2014
01/07/2015
List along with Cr. R. No.936/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.795/2014
01/07/2015
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6.
None for other respondents.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file appropriate application for substitute services regarding respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.9.
List in the next week, as prayed.
382 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr. R. No.936/2014 01/07/2015
Shri Wajid M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Heena Ansari, learned Counsel on behalf of Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner Smt. Harpreet Kaur is present in person.
Learned Counsel for the respondent prays 383 for short adjournment.
The prayer is vehemently opposed by the petitioner along with her Counsel submitting that not a single paisa has been paid towards the maintenance.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the respondent. It is directed that reconciliation may be worked out.
In this light it is, therefore, directed the respondent Ranjeet Singh Khanuja to remain present before this Court in the next date of hearing.
Counsel for the respondent prays for a fixed date in the matter.
List on 15th of July, 2015.
Both the parties are directed to remain present on that day.
384 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 385 Cr. R. No.660/2014 01/07/2015
List along with Cr. R. No.936/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.1103/2014
01/07/2015
Shri Jitendra Shejwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that some amount has been paid towards maintenance.
He is directed to file receipts for the same.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file receipts.
386List on Tuesday, i.e. on 7th of July, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.1482/2014
01/07/2015
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 / State.
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 prays for short adjournment to file power. I find that this matter can be disposed of finally.
In view of the above, by way of 387 indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the respondent No.2 to do the needful.
List for final disposal on 9th of July 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr. R. No.795/2014
01/07/2015
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6.
None for other respondents.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file appropriate application for substitute services regarding respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.9.
List in the next week, as prayed.
388 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M.Cr.C. No.2161/2014 01/07/2015
None had appeared, despite repeated calls, for the petitioner on 03/09/2014, 08/10/2014, 17/10/2014, 19/11/2014, 08/12/14, 14/01/15 and consistently throughout no one has been appearing for the petitioner.
In view of the above, it appears as if the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.
389(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge Cr. R. No.7/2015 01/07/2015 None for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to argue the matter.
List in the next Wednesday i.e. on 08/07/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
390
M.A. No. 1178 / 2013
01/07/2015
Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for time to pay fresh process regarding respondent No.1. He is granted one weeks time to do so.
Subject to which, issue notice to the respondent No.1 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week, thereafter. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
There is no service report regarding respondent No.2, as prescribed under provisions of amended High Court Rules.
Registry to verify and do the needful. List after service of notices on respondent.
391 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge M.Cr.C. No.4801/2015 01/07/2015
Shri Nilesh Kumar Gangwal, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue Notice to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks, thereafter.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices to the respondent.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
392
W.P. No.4131/2015
01/07/2015
Shri G.K. Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects, as pointed out by the registry, have been cured.
Registry is directed to verify the same. List the matter after verification.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
Cr.R. No. 176 / 2013
01/07/2015
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent.
393Heard.
Reserved for Orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
M.A. No. 2491 / 2015
01/07/2015
Shri Rajesh Bhandari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the 394 respondent No.2 / Insurance Company.
There is no service report regarding respondent No.2, as prescribed under provisions of amended High Court Rules.
Registry to verify and do the needful. List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge
R.P. No.412 / 2014
01/07/2015
Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the review was maintainable against the order, since the Court had failed to consider that the 395 respondent was not eligible in terms of eligibility criteria as laid down in the rules and prayed that appropriate modification be made in the order.
I find no ground for interference primarily because this Court had only directed the present petitioner to decide the representation of the respondent Pratibha Malviya in accordance with the provisions of law. There is nothing adverse in the order so as to affect the petitioner and on due consideration there is no error apparent on the face of record. The respondents are free to arrive at their own conclusion. I do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed as being without merit.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) sumathi Judge 396 Cr. R. No. 1466 / 2014 01/07/2015 None for the petitioner.
Shri Virendra Sharma,learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
sumathi Judge