Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saudan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2015
1
(Saudan Singh & ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
M.Cr.C.No.10814/2015
15.10.2015
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicants/accused.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
The case diary and copy of the charge-sheet are available for perusal.
This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No.254/2015 registered at Police Station Sironj, District Vidisha for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323, 324, 326, 147, 148, 149 & 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants/accused submits that there was a dispute between both the parties in connection with the demarcation of the plots of agricultural lands which are adjoining to each other. On the day of happening of the alleged incident, five persons namely Jagram, Sangram @ Sirnam, Shivraj, Sunil and Jivan sustained injuries. As per prosecution story and the statements of the injured person, vague allegations have been made against the applicants/accused about causing injuries to them. Except the injured Sangram @ Sirnam, the injuries caused to the remaining injured persons were found 2 (Saudan Singh & ors. Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.No.10814/2015 simple in nature. So far as the injuries caused to the Sangram are concerned, as per this statement, the said injuries were caused to him by Brij with a Farsa and Naval Singh with a stick but the applicants/accused did not caused any injury to Sangram. Though the other injured Jivan also sustained a grievous injury in his right little finger. The said injury was caused to him by the accused Kailash with a Farsa. The circumstances reveal that the applicants/accused did not caused any grievous injury or an injury to dangerous to life to any injured person. The applicants have been in custody since 18.08.2015 and disposal of the trial will take considerable time. On the aforesaid ground learned counsel has prayed for bail to the applicants.
The learned Public Prosecutor by opposing the prayer for bail, has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case diary.
On perusal of the case diary, the statements, the medical report of the injured persons, the submissions made on behalf of the applicants/accused appear to be sound. After investigation charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial will take considerable time to conclude the case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any view on the merits of the case, 3 (Saudan Singh & ors. Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.No.10814/2015 the present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount in case of each of the applicant to the satisfaction of Trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that they shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial Court.
A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.
C.C. as per rules.
(M. K. Mudgal) Judge neetu