Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul @ Kanta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2019
M.Cr.C. No.7358/2019 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7358/2019
(Rahul @ Kanta vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated:19/02/2019
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Heard, Case-diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.246/2018, registered at police station-Manak Chowk, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 323, 326, 294 and 506/34 of IPC.
As per prosecution case, on 06/06/2018 at about 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., the complainant-Ghanshyam was going to Triveni Mandir, where some persons were getting smoked by using pipe. When the complainant tried to stop them to do so, then an altercation took between the complainant and accused persons and they assaulted them by sticks and iron rod, due to which he sustained injuries.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor any test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution during investigation, therefore, there is nothing on record to established that the applicant is the person, who caused the injury to complainant-Ghanshyam by iron rod. The alleged incident has taken place on 06/06/2018; whereas the statements of the witnesses namely, Mohanlal, Pawan and Sandeep were recorded after six months of the alleged incident i.e. on 25/12/2018, in which they have stated that the applicant was also participated in the alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to explain the reason for delay in recording the statements of these witnesses, which indicates that they M.Cr.C. No.7358/2019 2 are got up witnesses. The applicant is in custody since 27/12/2018. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. There is no possibility of his absconsion or tempering with the evidence, if he be released on bail. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time. Under these circumstances, counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand Only), with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, with a condition that they shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE skt Santosh Kumar Tiwari 2019.02.19 19:02:21 +05'30'