Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Khumsingh Balu Barela vs The State Of M.P. on 21 September, 2017

Babu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2020

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The sole allegation against him is that he had slapped the complainant. The main allegation is against Murli, who caused injury 5 cm x 7 cm. on back with knife as per MLC report. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is complete and challan has been filed. He is not required for custodial investigation. Cue to jail incarceration since 10.8.2020 the family has already suffered social indignation and financial constrains. Due to Covid-19, the Court proceedings are paralyzed and regular proceedings are not taking place as a result there is possibility of undue and prolonged delay of 2 M.Cr.C.No.32085/2020 (Balu Vs. State of M.P.) trial in the obtaining facts and circumstances cannot be ruled out. Under such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity and on such terms and conditions, this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Arya - Full Document

Garibdas @ Rohan Mahant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2021

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. Nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicants. The police have not followed the mandatory prescribed under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicants are in custody since 13.03.2019 and due to Covid-19, the conclusion of the trial would take time. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Apart from this, he submits that in the identical circumstances this Court recently vide order dated 27.04.2021 has extended the benefit of bail to the concerned accused persons namely in the matter of Bablu Barela vs. State of M.P., in M.Cr.C. No.17147/2021, in the matter of Premsingh Barela vs. State of M.P. and others in M.Cr.C. No.17144/2021, and in the matter of Paarsingh vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.19029/2021. In the Signature Not aforesaid cases, the concerned three accused persons were found in SAN Verified Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2021.06.30 16:57:08 IST 2 MCRC-27548-2021 possession of 21 Kg Ganja. The concerned applicants were in jail since 08.07.2020 and there is no criminal antecedents against the concerned applicants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - A K Srivastava - Full Document

Phool Chand Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2021

accused Dharmendra. the contraband was not belonging to applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution property has been seized from the applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Gupta but co-accused Dhirendra Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34265/2020 so on the basis of parity benefit of bail should also be given to the present applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is highly diabetic and is not in a position to survive the jail custody. He has filed the doctor prescriptions and other test reports to show the ailment of applicant. Apart from this, he submits that in the identical circumstances this Court recently vide order dated 27.04.2021 has extended the benefit of bail to the concerned accused persons namely in the Signature SAN Not matter of Bablu Barela vs. State of M.P. , in M.Cr.C. No.17147/2021, in Verified Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2021.07.23 17:26:01 IST 2 MCRC-30199-2021 the matter of Premsingh Barela vs. State of M.P. and others in M.Cr.C. No.17144/2021, and in the matter of Paarsingh vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.19029/2021. In the aforesaid cases, the concerned three accused persons were found in possession of 21 Kg Ganja. The concerned applicants were in jail since 08.07.2020 and there is no criminal antecedents against the concerned applicants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A K Srivastava - Full Document

Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2019

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this court that on 01-09-2017 at about 11:00 PM ten to fifteen persons after reaching the house of the complainant Kamma have assaulted him and has also placed the house on fire. It has been stated that no one was named in the FIR and later on the names of the present applicants were added by the police. He has also stated that other co-accused person has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 20-02-2018 passed in MCRC No. 5939/2018 (Balu Vs. State of M.P) and the same reads as under :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2021

Consequently, I.A. No.6604/2021, is hereby allowed and it is directed that execution of jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore Cri.A. No.1818/2021 (Balu Vs. State of M.P.) amount in case of the appellant to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21.06.2021 and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard with following further conditions:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Arya - Full Document

Mangilal @ Mangu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 June, 2021

It is also observed that if the applicant is found to be involved in any criminal activities, after his release on bail, then the present 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26486 of 2021 Mangilal @ Mangu S/o Balu Vs. State of M.P. bail order shall stand cancelled without further reference to this Court; and the State / prosecution will be free to arrest the accused in the present case also.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Ratansingh vs State Of M.P. on 2 July, 2021

BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.4751/2020 Ratan Singh S/o Kahriya Barela Vs. State of MP below on more than one occasion has mentioned that because of common intention the appellant with co-accused attacked the deceased and, therefore, with the aid of Section 34 of IPC the present appellant was also punished. However, there exists no iota of evidence to attract Section 34 of IPC. Final hearing of this appeal in near future is not possible during this pandemic era. Thus, Shri Lokesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel urged that considering the nature of involvement of appellant- Ratan Singh, he may be granted bail by suspending his remaining jail sentence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

Balu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2021

The prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer Taking into consideration that the appellant has served the jail sentence for more than five years, the mother and wife of the appellant have 2 Cr.A.No.7225/2019 (Balu Vs. State of M.P.) stated to be passed away, the disposal of appeal will take time, the application is allowed. It is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail subject to depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 25.10.2021 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Arya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next